9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rried out by the AO. We are of the view that it is coming out that the books of account are not maintained in regular course of business and assessee itself admit that these are incomplete and does not possible to reconcile each and every entry. Hence, we are of the view that the AO has rightly rejected the books of account and which CIT(A) also confirmed. In view of the above position, we dismiss this ground of assessee’s appeal. Addition on account of Money Market Oversold Position (MMOP) including addition on account of 11.5% central loan 2011 - Revenue is in appeal against deletion of addition in relation to money market oversold position - Held that:- Despite several reminders and even after taking up the matter with the superior officers no report was submitted by the AO. Further, it is observed that though the CIT(A) has himself verified the various evidences placed on record before him and given a detailed finding in case of each of the security he has directed the AO to re-verify the same and recomputed the oversold position. Ld Counsel stated that the AO has carried out detailed verification by taking almost a year before passing the order u/s 154 of the Act dated 02.05.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delete the addition of 29,70,53,629/- out of the sum of 223,83,58,173/-. Addition of oversold units - Held that:- The assessee has asked for the details of such oversold units but no such details were provided to the assessee so that the assessee can contradict the same. Before us also the Ld Counsel taken the said contention but the CIT-DR even though relied on the order of the AO and brought voluminous record but could not bring to our knowledge any specific record or evidence which may prove that the assessee has sold such Units 64. In the absence of any evidence, which may prove that the assessee has oversold Units 64, we cannot sustain this addition and we are bound to delete the same. No addition can be made or sustained merely on the basis of the suspicion, howsoever strong it may be. Addition on account of Money market unexplained stock - Held that:- Set aside this issue and restore it to the file of the AO with the direction that the AO shall re-verify the evidences in respect of claim of the assessee for 9% HUDCO Bonds as well as Units 64 whether they belong to the assessee or not in case if he finds these assets do not belong to the assessee, the amount included in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at least one generation would have changed. Since, the revenue could not discharge its onus and addition in our view is based just on surmises and conjectures. We, therefore, delete the addition. Thus, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed. Addition on account of profit on sale of shares in shortage - Held that:- AO failed to appreciate the fact that the shares were either in physical possession of the assessee or were stolen or seized or were found to be registered in the names of third parties. The presumption that the shares have been sold without any piece of direct or indirect evidence or explanation is bad in law and needs to be reconsidered and accordingly the entire addition deserves to be deleted. There had been search and seizure action against the assessee and assessee group on 28.2.1992, the evidences regarding sales outside the books must have been found if the assessee made any sales. No such evidence being found in respect of unaccounted sales being made as otherwise such evidence would have been produced or brought before us by the revenue. This is the settled law that Suspicion whatever strong it may be, it cannot take the place of actuality. We agree with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch deposit consisting of each and every entry. In the absence of onus being discharged by the assessee, we sustain the addition of 1,80,50,965/-. So far the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) amounting to 25,48,16,855/- is concerned, we do not find illegality or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the said addition and this amount also in our view cannot be regarded to be the unexplained money. Addition on account of transactions with Mr. Niranjan J. Shah - Held that:- No independent evidence corroborating the statement of Niranjan shah has been brought on record. The report of JPC, in our view cannot be regarded to be the incriminating material to be used against the assessee. In view of this, we are bound to delete the said addition. Addition on account of alleged payment to June Investments Pvt. Ltd. - Held that:- The addition has been made merely on the basis of the document found from the possession of third party, no collaborative evidence is being brought on record by way of statement on behalf of June Investments P Ltd or by way of any evidence being found or seized during the course of search being carried out at the premises of the assessee showing that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of sources of income against the expenses/ investment/application of such source based on telescoping theory - Held that:- Direct the AO that in case any addition is survived in the preceding paragraphs on account of unexplained receipts or profit on trading in shares and also on account of unexplained investments or expenditures, to allow set off and telescoped of these additions and such unexplained investments or unexplained expenditures should be deemed to have been made or incurred out of such receipts or profit on trading in shares etc. The AO will compute the income after giving effect to this order after considering these directions and after confronting the assessee. Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C - Held that:- Levy of interest is mandatory. We, therefore, dismiss ground no 31 regarding levy of interest, but direct the AO in respect of ground no.32 and 33 that the interest levied under section 234A,234B and 234C be recomputed after excluding the income which is subject to TDS. So far as the issue relating to the levy of interest u/s 234B till the date of original assessment or upto the date of the assessment subsequently made after it being set aside by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i H.S. Mehta for AY 1992-93 in ITA No.5702/Mum/2017 of assessee appeal and ITA No.6028/Mum/2017 of Revenue appeal. 3. Before dealing with these appeals, we want to narrate the brief background of the case. Brief history of all these appeals facts, events, chronology of dates and events & circumstances are identical. Hence we need not to repeat the same in each appeal but in this one only. Hence, these para 3 to 5 are dedicated to history and background of this group of cases. The assessee, late Shri Harshad S. Mehta belonged to Harshad S. Mehta Group of Cases engaged in the business of brokerage as a member of Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), a notified person under the special court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. There was a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act conducted on the assessee group of cases on 28.02.1992. During the course of search, various incriminating material was found and seized including share certificates and documents relating to investments in shares etc. Later a search action was carried out in this group of cases by CBI on 04.06.1992 and similar documents were seized by them also. The assessee filed original ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the order of ITAT on 30.11.2015 determining the total income at ₹ 6,84,08,000/-. Thereafter, the AO again passed an order giving effect to the order of the ITAT on 15.03.2016 determining total income at ₹ 2341,69,29,080/-. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of CIT(A), who passed the impugned order dated 28.06.2017, against which the assessee as well as Revenue both have preferred the present appeals. We find from the facts of the case that apart from the additions made in original assessment, which was subsequently confirmed, the CIT(A) in pursuance to the directions of ITAT finally computed the income vide order dated 15.03.2016 as under: - Particulars Amount (in ₹) Total assessed income as per order under section 144 dated 27.03.1995 20,14,04,65,298 Less: Relief allowed by CIT(A) dt. 03/10/2006 (-) 25,20,16,000 Relief allowed by CIT(A) vide order 24.03.2010 Unexplained money….101,46,00,000 Income from alleged HUF…76,660 Inter corporate deposit …50,00,000 (-) 1,01,86,76,660 Add. Enhancement made by CIT(A) vide order dtd.24.03.2010 Interest receivable from family members 118500000 On account of Mr. Ni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hfloor to 20thfloor of Air India Building. As the matter was of top priority, the entire case records are packed in gunny bags and process of shifting the case records to 20thfloor of same building is in progress. Due to this shifting process, to locate the case records of above referred assessee has become very difficult. Further, the undersigned is attending the Hon'bIe Special Court (TORTS) Act. 1992, two days i.e. Thursday and Friday on every week with regard to Harshad Mehta cases. There is impetus on recovery surveys apart from regular heavy workload. Furthermore, the undersigned is holding two charges which do have very heavy workload. The Charge i.e. DCIT-Central Circle-4(1) has been held by me only with effect from 24.01.2018. Further it is an additional charge. It will take to be conversant with the charge and especially the facts in the Harshad Mehta group. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it is requested that further time of two more months may kindly be granted considering the above facts.' 2. At the outset, we want to narrate the brief facts relating to litigation in these matters that these assessees belongs to Harshad Mehta group of cases and are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly hearing petitions on the basis and in compliance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6326 of 2010 dated 02.05.2017 and also on 08.05.2017. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.05.2017 in Civil No. 6326 of 2010 has modified the order dated 02.05.2017 as under: - "in view of the submissions made, the order dated 02.05.2017 passed by us in paras 3 and 5 are modified and a new para (9A) is incorporated as under: 3) Therefore, we direct the Income Tax Authorities to pay the said amount of ₹ 192.54 crores to the Custodian with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of passing of the refund order within a period of 12 weeks from today. 5) The orders (Ninety) which have already been passed by the ITAT directing the Revenue to re-frame the assessment by taking into account the evidence of books of accounts should be decided by the Authority within a period of 2 weeks from today. 9A) The custodian is directed to take appropriate steps to recover the assets of the appellants." In entirety of facts and circumstances as mentioned above, we are of the view that the hearing, despite the fact that the hearing is going ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral-2 may be informed. 15.03.2018 During the hearing, the Department filed a letter dated 12.03.2018 vide No. DCIT-CC4(1)/Remand Report/2017-18, received on 13.03.2018 containing certain Annexures. Ongoing through the annexures, it is noticed that these are old correspondence between the assessee and the Department including some information that some documents were provided to the assessee. This information is kept on record. The learned Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. P Daniel along with Addl. CIT Miss Annu Krishna Agarwal appeared for Revenue. When they were confronted regarding one item of addition i.e. shares of Reliance Industries of 24,41,679 shares, the learned Departmental Representative was asked what is the basis for putting allegation on the assessee that these shares belongs Shri Ashwin S. Mehta, the assessee. The learned Addl. CIT Miss. Annu Krishna Agarwal stated that she requires time to find out the evidences regarding this addition. The learned Addl. CIT is also directed to bring evidences regarding each itemized addition on the next date of hearing, so that hearing can be concluded at the earliest. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned to 22.03.2018. 22.03.2018 Let t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y). Both parties informed. Accordingly, these appeals were heard finally on 19.06.2018 but since during the course of dictation of these orders, we required certain clarifications and therefore, the appeals were fixed for hearing on 25.09.2018. For this the following order sheet entry was recorded on 25.09.2018: - "Ld. Counsel asked for the adjournment as he could not prepare the case and clarification asked by the bench has received today. In view of the Ld. Counsel hearing is adjourned to 15.10.2018 alw ITA 3386 & 6120/M/17 (Ashwin Mehta), ITA 4204 & 4310/M/17 (Jyoti Mehta), ITA 5702/ & 6028/M/17 (Harshad Mehta) & ITA 1222/M/17 (Harsh Estate P. Ltd.) Both parties informed." Ultimately, the hearing of these appeals was finally concluded on 15.10.2018. 6. The first issue raised by assessee is that the assessment framed by AO dated 15.03.2016 (The impugned assessment order) in consequence to ITAT's directions is bad in law. For this assessee has raised following ground No. 1 and 2: - "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's contention that the assessment order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. ACIT [2013] 216 Taxman 238 (Bombay). The learned Counsel for the assessee referred this decision which was followed by CIT(A) in the case of DCIT vs. Heena N. Kanakia in ITA No. 3718/Mum/2015 and the said order of CIT(A) has been upheld by ITAT for AY 2003-04 in ITA No. 3718/Mum/2015 dated 23.09.2015. This order of ITAT is enclosed at pages 681 to 686 of (APB). 6.2. On the other hand, the learned special Counsel for the Income Tax department Shri P Daniel, first of all drew our attention to the provisions of the 254(1) of the Act and he read out the same as, "The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit" and argued that the AO has statistically reduced the demand and summarily passed an order giving effect without allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in such circumstances, when ITAT thought fit for giving directions then any order of the AO which is not given effect to the directions cannot be said to be an order. Shri Daniel argued that the law established by the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Classic Share & Stock Broking Services L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns to ITAT order as enclosed as Annexure-3.The second question raised in Para 2 is clearly proven by order of classic shares& stocks (Supra) that it was giving effect to directions of ITAT whereas order enclosed as Annexure-1 in this case is not giving effect to directions. Therefore, the question number 2 is answered in positive. Then, it is clearly inferred from both the questions that Annexure 2 and Annexure 1 are clearly distinct. The directions of ITAT are supreme as ITAT has thought it fit to give directions under section 254 of the Act. 6.4. In view of the above submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue stated that the case law cited by assessee of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Classic Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable and hence, has no application to the facts of the present case. 6.5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, the material placed on record by both sides as well as brought to our knowledge. We have also gone through the decisions of jurisdiction High Court in the case of Classic Share and Stock Broking Services Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed another order on 27.12.2011 purported to be an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act reducing the loss to ₹ 3,18,86,540/- withdrawing the relief which were earlier allowed vide order dated 27.12.2010 mentioning in that order 'relief allowed by ITAT'. On these facts, Hon'ble High Court quashed the order passed by the AO dated 27.12.2011 by holding as under: - "The Tribunal by its order dt. 17th December 2010 restored the proceedings back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer gave effect to the order of the Tribunal by passing an order dated 27 December 2010 which states that it has been made u/s 254. The Assessing Officer re-computed the loss at ₹ 16.82 crores. In this view of the matter, once the AO had given effect to the order of the Tribunal, his successor in office had no jurisdiction to pass a fresh order dt 27 December 2011. The impugned order dt 27 December 2011 in fact reflects an awareness of the AO of the earlier order which was passed in order to give effect to the order of the Tribunal. The AO in the table which has been extracted earlier has in his computation commenced with a total income as computed in the order of the AO dt. 27 Decembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al grounds of appeal, which revolves around the facts that the books of accounts have been rejected by the Revenue authorities. 2) Hon'ble ITAT in the said order restored/set aside the issue to the file of AO directed to verify/examine each entry in the books of accounts and to decide the issue afresh after examining the books of accounts of the assessee. 4) Revise assessed income accordingly. Compute the tax demand as per income of ₹ 6,84,08,000/- declared by the assessee as against the assessed income of ₹ 2014,04,65,298/- determined vide assessment order passed u/s 144 dated 27.03.1995. Charge interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Issue revised Demand Notice u/s 156 and challan." 6.8. After going through the order of this Tribunal dated 29.10.2014 in the present case, we noted that this Tribunal has not set aside assessment and has also not directed the AO to make a fresh assessment but as observed by the AO himself in his order giving effect to the order of the Tribunal dated 30.01.15 restored/set aside the issue to the file of AO and directed the AO to verify /examine each entry in the books of accounts and to decide the issue afresh after exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment order dated 15.03.2016 passed u/s 144 rws 253 of the Act as invalid. Thus the ground no. 1 & 2 taken by the assessee are allowed. 7. The next issue raised vide ground Nos. 3 and 4 in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) in regard to violation of principle of natural justice and not applied principles of best judgment assessment. For this assessee has raised following ground Nos. 3 and 4: - "3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's contention that principles of natural justice were not complied with during the course of assessment. The Appellant prays that the order of the AO be quashed as it is bad in law. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A)has erred in not upholding that the principles of best judgment assessment have not been complied with and that the total income determined by the AO is excessive compared to the assessment / income determined by all the government agencies. The appellant prays that the order of the AO be quashed as the AO did not follow principles of best judgment." 7.1. At the time of hearing, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t cannot be rejected on the grounds stated in the appellate order. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the AO and directed him to consider each and every entry noted in the books of account. It was claimed that this issue of books of account had attained finality and it was for the department to make compliance with the order of the Tribunal. But the AO rejected the books of account and CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by observing in Para 22 and 23 as under: - "22. I have gone through the submissions and contentions of the assessee as also the order of the AO in respect of the rejection of books of account. Looking to the facts of the case, one cannot disagree with the fact that no books of account were prepared till 2001 for financial year ended 31 March 1992. Hence, the observation made by my ld. predecessor that in most probability the books of account which are being produced by the Appellant were created after a long period of time, the source of which is either not known or considerably doubtful, cannot be defined. Further, since the books of account have not been audited by any chartered accountant, I find that the books of account are not liable to be ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... encing transactions undertaken for and on behalf of clients. b. Vide letter dated 27.01.2016 (page No. 400 to 402of APB No. 1), the assessee furnished cheque counter folios, contract notes and bills evidencing transactions undertaken for and on behalf of clients. c. Vide letter dated 28.01.2016 (page Nos. 403 of APB No. 1), the assessee furnished copies of bank statements of several bank accounts etc to the Assessing Officer. d. Vide letter dated 9.02.2016 (page Nos. 408 and 409 of APB No. 1), the assessee furnished further contract notes and bills evidencing transactions undertaken for and on behalf of clients. e. Vide letter dated 16.02.2016 (page No. 411 of APB No. 1), the assessee furnished the complete books of account to the Assessing Officer. f. Vide two letters dated 19.02.2016 (page Nos. 412 and 415 of APB No. 1), the assessee furnished contract notes and bills evidencing transactions undertaken for and on behalf of clients. g. Vide two letters dated 29.02.2016 (page Nos. 418 to 419 and 421 of APB No. 1), the assessee furnished contract notes and copies of the accounts etc along with the copies of the vallan / settlement records of B.S.E. to the Assessing Officer. h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese books of account. The Tribunal finally in Para 16.3 to 18 has directed to confront the assessee in respect of any specific entry, which in his opinion is impossible and if it is found that the same is not tallying with the related party transactions then it is expected from the AO to confront to the assessee the relevant transaction with books of account and allow him opportunity to reconcile the difference. For this Tribunal observed asunder: - "16.3. Having said all that, in our considered opinion and in our understanding of the facts, the books of accounts have been rejected on flimsy grounds without thoroughly examining each and every entry and without confronting specific discrepancy, if any, to the assessee. In our considered opinion, we have to restore this issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to verify/examine each entry in the books of accounts without getting prejudice by the fact that books of accounts are not contemporaneous. The AO is further directed to confront the assessee in respect of any specific entry which in his opinion is improbable, if it is found that certain balances are not tallying with related party transactions, then it is expected tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain submitted only the photocopies of old voluminous documents without taking any effort to explain entry to entry transactions. Even the auditor M/s Vyas and Vyas and Hon'ble Special Court also did not find such books of account as complete and reliable and observed that the books of account had so many inconsistencies and infirmity and therefore could not relied upon. It was also noted that whatsoever books were produced do not reflect true and complete picture. The assessee before us also admitted that the books of account were maintained on computers but unfortunately, due to virus there was a breakdown and back up was created, because of which, the books of account were incomplete and hence, could not be produced. But he claimed that the complete books of account are easily retrievable and accordingly, was drawn on the basis of contemporary records as well as seized material. He explained that bulk of the transactions were undertaken by the assessee through brokerage firms on behalf of the family members and corporate entities promoted by them, all of whom have been assessed by the same AO. It was explained that these entities have placed copies of contract note, bills and oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Harshad Mehta through Prop Harshad S Mehta was a registered member of Bombay Stock Exchange governed by Securities Contract Regulations Act (SCRA), 1956 and Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws framed by the Bombay Stock Exchange, in 1957. In terms of the Bye laws, he could undertake transactions both for brokerage as well as principal. Under SCRA it was obligatory for any person or entity to undertake transactions other than the spot delivery only through a registered member of the Stock Exchange and therefore for all transactions undertaken by the market participants like Banks, Financial Institutions, PSUs and Corporate it was obligatory to undertake their transactions only through the members of the Stock Exchange. Instruments that were dealt with in this market are Government Securities, Bonds of Public Sector Undertakings (PSU's) and Units of Unit Trust of India. As a statutory requirement, Banks and Financial Institutions were required to invest a certain percentage of their demand and time liabilities in Government securities as Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR). There was market for this business between Banks, PSU's and Corporate for lending and borrowing of monies for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g certain commissions. Routing banks were also maintaining Securities General Ledger account on behalf of their customers with RBI." 9.2. The Assessing Officer vide original assessment order made addition on account of MMOP and also determined loss on trading of securities (page Nos. 12 to 47 of APB No. 1) on the basis of following: - "a) Deal File for transactions up to 27.02.1992 forming part of the books of account of the Appellant seized from the computers during the course of search proceedings; and b) Information gathered for transactions post 27.02.1992 from banks and financial institutions is captured in Annexure M-1 (page Nos. 433 to 444 of APB No. 2) by the Assessing Officer. The list of various transactions captured in Annexure M-1 is from Banks perspective. Accordingly, the transaction marked as P in the Annexure M-1 is a purchase from the Banks perspective, and the same transaction is a sale transaction from assessee's perspective. Likewise, transaction marked as S is a sale from Bank's view point and the same transaction is a purchase from assessee's view point The instances of the same have been demonstrated before Your Honour's during the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position i.e. in Annexure M-1 and Annexure M-2. Accordingly, the CIT(A) has directed the AO to re-compute the money market oversold position in light of the directions of the Hon'ble Special Court order dated 29.09.2007 (page No 580 of APB No. 2) and Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 03.12.2008 (page No. 609 of MB No. 2). C. In para No. 24.24 on page No 76 of the impugned order dated 28.06.2017 the CIT(A) has placed reliance on the Hon'ble Special Court's order dated 29.09.2007 which is subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 3.12.2008 in (2009) 2 SCC 451 (page No. 611 of MB No. 2) wherein the manner of computation of oversold position has been specifically decided. The Assessing Officer has been directed to rework oversold position / trading and profits & loss after allowing the purchase cost i.e. only the difference in sale price and purchase price is to be considered and accordingly only the profit or loss is to be added as the income of the assessee." The balance position in oversold securities surviving after order giving effect dated 02.05.2018 (page No. 474 to 476 of APR No. 2) to the CIT(A)'s order dated 28.06.2017 is ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Annexure M-1 and M-2 to compute MMOP the transactions wherein no delivery is made have been considered. Such other transactions have resulted in decrees against the assessee. In support of his contention, Ld Counsel relied on Hon'ble Special Court, wherein vide its order dated 29.09.2007 (page Nos. 563 to 594 of the APB No. 2) has also held that in view of the decrees passed by the court, at least, the amount of principal is liable to be deducted from the taxable income of the notified party. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para Nos. 38 and 39 of their order in case of DOT vs. SBI [(2009) 2 SCC 4511 (page Nos. 595 to 612 of the APB No. 2) has also given a similar finding. He explained that assessee was never furnished with the itemized break-up of all the transactions considered by AO before passing of the original assessment order dated 27.03.1995 under each head of securities resulting in addition of ₹ 1080,58.89,691/- on account of MMOP. However, only after 15 years, during the course of the second round of appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) such itemized details were made available for the first time. He pointed out several errors and inconsistenci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 28.06.2017 providing specific finding of the CIT(A) in relation to inclusion of decretal transactions in Annexure M-1 and M-2. Relevant extract is as under: - "24.22 I have considered the facts of the case, submissions and contentions of the assessee as also the order of the AO, I find that the appellant has submitted voluminous details supporting his claim that there was nexus between the transactions covered under various decrees discussed above and the transactions featuring in the computation of oversold position i.e. Annexure Wand Annexure Ml. All these details were forwarded to the A0 during the course of the appellate proceedings and his comments were sought. However, no report in this regard was submitted. I find that if one goes through the aforementioned Miscellaneous Petitions in, detail, a clear nexus is established with respect to the transactions demonstrated by the appellant as discussed above. The same has also been held by the Hon'ble Special Court in its order dated 29.0.9.2007 and subsequently uphold by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT v. State Sank of India and Ors. (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 451." 9.10. In view of the above, Ld Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ming part of the decrees as mentioned in the table have indeed been considered by the Assessing Officer in Annexure Ml & M-2 for computing MMOP. The Id. DR was neither able to controvert or negate the Appellant's submissions nor able to demonstrate his contention that the transactions mentioned in the decrees are different from the transactions considered by the Assessing Officer in Annexure M-1 & M-2 for computing money market oversold position." 9.12. As regards to the contention of Ld CIT-DR that the decrees passed by the Hon'ble Special Court on the basis of which relief has been granted to the assessee by the CIT(A) have been challenged by the assessee. In relation to the same, Ld Counsel stated the fact that no such appeal is filed in relation to the decree passed in case of Miscellaneous Petition No. 52 of 1993. Hence, the contention of the Ld. CIT-DR in relation to relief provided in respect of the M.P. 52 of 1993 is incorrect. In respect to other decrees, it was stated that against the said decrees, Civil Appeals have been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court only because they were passed ex parte i.e. denying the assessee right to fair representation and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance on the provisions of section 292C of the Act to assert that the presumption of the Department that the transactions captured in Annexure M-1and M-2 are only those wherein delivery has been made. Ld Counsel for the assessee explained that presumptions arising under section 292C of the Act which uses the words 'it may be presumed' are rebuttable and not conclusive. In respect of the same, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Buldana Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd. [2013] 153 TTJ 728 (Nagpur - Trib.) and on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. R. Metrani vs. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC). 9.16. Secondly, the ld. Counsel explained that the securities in the money market are interchangeable as the money market transactions of purchase and sale of securities were in substance largely financial transactions of borrowing and lending. Hence, in case, at the time of execution of the transaction there was a shortage in the security fixed, the transaction would still be executed and funds would be transferred on the basis of another security. In support of the same, reliance is placed on Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer on this aspect- During the course of appellate proceedings for the A.Y. 1990-91, in his case, the assessee's representative argued that BRs (Bankers receipts) were issued in case of oversold position by the routing bank but till date no details of any BPs which were outstanding on the last day of the previous year and were discharged later on have been furnished. No evidence also has been provided by the assessee in support of his contention. However, as discussed in para No. 82 above, independent inquiries were conducted from the banks. It revealed that the UCO bank, Hamam Street Branch, Bombay has issued two BPs. to MIs. Power Finance Corporation of these transactions was ₹ 1,07,01,43,070/- as mentioned in Annexure-J. Hence, oversold position of securities to the extent of ₹ 107 01,43,0701- is treated as explained." 106. Apart from the all above circumstances, another important circumstance is fact that no cash transactions are possible in money market nor there were cash purchases found in course of search by the Income Tax Department as well as by CBI Taking into consideration all the above circumstances, we are of the view that addition of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e regarding the inaccuracy of seized material during the course of the original assessment proceedings the assessee submitted that the deal file contained operational data and was subject to correction, addition and change (page No. 14 of APB No. 1). c) Several decrees awarded by the Hon'ble Special Court against the assessee and in favour of the Banks/Financial Institutions establishing absence of delivery in respect of transactions in money market d) Tribunal's order for AY 1990-91 (page nos. 539 to 561 of APB No, 2) e) If the presumption of the AO in relation to delivery of securities is upheld, it leads to absurd consequences since the so called 'securities' mentioned in Annexure M-1 and M-2 are not actual securities. For instance, Call Money is not a security in which one can undertake purchase and sale. Under 'Call' the banks undertake to borrow or lend money. Likewise, CC Asset and ATBF (Asset To Be Fixed) are also not securities but temporary accounts under which the transactions are parked in cases particulars of the securities are not given by the clients. Thus, additions made by AO in respect of such non-existent securities are false." 9.20. In an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Supreme Court, the CIT(A) vide Para 24.12 to 24.16, drew his conclusion that there are some inconsistencies while preparing Annexure M-2 which has resulted incorrect Oversold Position in the Money Market transactions. Ld CIT-DR stated that the CIT(A) gave his remarks in respect of some transactions as mentioned in Para 24.16 and concluded in next Para by giving directions to AO to verify the evidence submitted by assessee in the light of the orders dated 29.09.2007 and 03.12.2008 of Hon'ble Special Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court respectively and then re-compute the position of stock and also the addition of Oversold Position on account of securities discussed by him. He also directed the AO to rework the money market trading, profit/loss for the said securities in respect of the above transactions. 9.22. After mentioning the aforesaid facts and conclusion drawn by CIT(A) in the present appellate order, it was argued by CIT-DR that the CIT(A) has failed to understand the issue involved in the aforesaid orders of Hon'ble Special Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court on the basis of which, he has provided relief to the assessee in respect of aforesaid transactions. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , he has directed the AO to re-verify the facts in the light of decision of Hon'ble Special Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and decide the issue. Thus, on both the counts, it was argued by the CIT-DR that the relief provided by CIT(A) is unjustified and, therefore, the Oversold Position computed by AO deserves to be sustained. Ld CIT-DR stated the fact that while deciding the issue, CIT(A) mentioned the findings of his predecessor wherein similar objections were raised by assessee in respect of identical transactions and CIT(A) has discussed these entries in his order dated 24.03.2010 from pages no. 84 to 89 which may be considered while deciding the issue. He further submitted a chart on 30.05.2018 in the Bench distinguishing the facts of each transaction and establishing that AO has correctly understood the nature of transactions before including these in Annexure M-2 of assessment order. A chart has been submitted for deciding the issue. 9.24. As regards to the Oversold Position of securities as per Annexure M-2 CIT(A) has discussed that as per the chart given by assessee there are many transactions featuring in AnnexureM-1/M-2 which have clear nexus with the transactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount was to be reduced. Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the Hon'ble Special Court to decide this issue afresh in view of the facts brought on record. Thus, the decision of Hon'ble Special Court was not accepted or upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court rather appropriate directions were given to verify the facts and establish the nexus before deciding the issue. He narrated that the assessee has taken support of the transactions contained in the decrees to correlate the transactions of Annexure M-2, but he himself has challenged all the decrees by filing the Misc. Petitions as under:- S. N MP No. Date Reference made in MP 1. MP No. 5 of 2009 Mrs Jyoti Mehta Vs. Standard Chartered bank & Others 12.06.2009 Order dated 25.07.2003 in Suit No. 28 of 1995 2. MP No. 65 of 2009 11.06.2009 Order dated 14.08.2003 in MP 14 of 1995 3. MP No. 7 of 2009 Mrs Jyoti Mehta vs. SBI Capital market & Others 12.06.2009 Order dated 25.06.2003 in MP No. 61 of 1992 4. MP No. 8 of 2009 Mrs. Jyoti Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Others 11.06.2009 Order dated 22.04.2003 in MP No. 63 of 1992 5. MP No. 9 of 2009 Mrs. Jyoti Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Others 11.06.2009 Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Accordingly, it was mentioned that the data of Annexure M-2 was prepared with the consent of assessee only and now he is objecting to the same data by challenging its authenticity. Further, a chart has been submitted on 30.05.2018 by distinguishing the facts of each transaction and establishing that the transactions of decrees are altogether different from the transactions of Annexure M-2, therefore, not included while computing the Oversold Position of securities. He also referred to the order of CIT(A) dated 24.03.2010 which starts from page no. 71 and goes up to page no. 84, for consideration before deciding the issue. 9.27. As regards to the difference in sale price and purchase price should be considered as profit from such transactions, Ld CIT-DR argued that the Trading Accounts in respect of each security as per Annexure M-2 have been prepared by taking difference of sale price and purchase price only. It was explained that while working out the transactions of journal entries derived from Deal Files that only the completed transactions marked as 'True' and 'RT' have been taken into account to prepare the Trading Account and accordingly, Profit/Loss, Closi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th money market instruments. It was further mentioned that in the Deal Files for both the periods i.e. 01.04.1991 to 27.02.1992 and 28.02.1992 to 31.03.1992, against each completed transaction on Principal to Principal basis. Similarly, the reports of Janakiraman Committee, Joint Parliamentary Committee and audit report of Vyas & Vyas were also referred wherein they have quantified the total exposure of ₹ 4024.45 crores (Janakiraman Committee report page no. 278 to 280) which was the scam amount. It has been further mentioned in the reports that in respect of transactions of the amount of problem exposure of ₹ 4024.45 crores only, banks did not hold any securities, SGL, transfer forms or bank receipts, meaning thereby all the remaining transactions were executed by the brokers, including Harshad S. Mehta, with the support and backing of delivery of securities. It was further mentioned from the reports that there are the specific transactions wherein no delivery has taken place. In respect of assessee, the reports of Janakiraman Committee has identified such transactions as detailed in Second Report of the Committee which contained the transactions of ₹ 1271.20 cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O having omitted to consider securities worth ₹ 107 crores while working out the peak position. Thus, the assessee's case is clearly different and distinguishable from the case of present assessment year. 9.31. As regards to negative opening balance, the assessee has mentioned that negative balances of ₹ 103.75 crores and ₹ 100 crores have been wrongly included in the Oversold Position. It was argued from perusal of the assessment order for the AY 1991-92 that it was in order as it can be seen from the assessment for that assessment year, these amounts were not made the subject matter of income for that year and accordingly, they were rightly carried forward as negative balances for the present assessment year. Since the amounts were not subject to tax in AY 1991-92, they have been rightly brought to tax during the year under consideration. However, ITAT has in its powers to give the directions to CIT(A) to make the addition of the aforesaid amounts in the relevant year, if they hold that the addition has not been made in the correct assessment year. As regards the ATBF (Asset To Be Fixed) and Call, it was contended by assessee that in the case of ATBF, assets ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO in arriving at the oversold position in case of the security - 'Units 1964 Scheme'. The Annexure M-2 provides consolidated figures of the opening stock and oversold position of securities. During the course of assessments, appellate and set-aside proceedings, submissions were made requesting the AO to furnish the break-up of transactions considered for computing money market oversold position in Annexure M-2. As stated herein above, though itemized break-up of purchases and sales of certain securities in oversold position was provided to the assessee during the second round of litigation before the CIT(A), the itemized break-up of transactions considered in the case of 'Units 1964 Scheme' was never provided to the assessee. The same is evident from the letter dated 10.04.2017 filed by the assessee (page Nos. 497 and 498 of APB No. 2). In the absence of detailed break-up of transactions considered by the AO for computing oversold position in relation to Units 1964 scheme, the assessee is unable to contest the aforesaid addition. Accordingly, it was prayed that the additions of ₹ 80,64,44,495/- made on account of oversold position in Units-1964 Scheme o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 48 of the impugned order dated 28.06.2017). It was claimed that the sale transaction pertaining to 12% Central Loan 2011 executed on 07.03.1992 of face value of ₹ 100 crores is erroneously considered as the sale transaction of 11.5% Central Loan 2011 by the AO while computing the oversold position. He relies on letter dated 01.02.1993 written by the SBI to CBI disclosing details of transactions of SBI with the assessee for the period 01.04.1991 to 30.04.1992. The transaction at serial No. 289 (page No 490 of APB No. 2) contains details of assessee's sale transaction (i.e. bank's purchase transaction) of 12% Central Loan 2011 executed on 07.03.1992 of face value of ₹ 100 crores. It is this transaction which is erroneously recorded as sale transaction of 11.5% Central Loan 2011 instead of 12% Central Loan 2011 in Annexure M-1 (page No. 440 of APB No, 2) and ultimately considered in the list of purchase and sale transactions in security - 11.5% Central Loan 2011 (page No. 478 of APB No. 2) for computing the oversold position. He clarified that there exists no sale transaction of 11.5% Central Loan 2011 on 07.03.1992 as per letter dated 01.02.1993, clearly imply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MOP was that at one hand the AO has taxed the sales transaction as income of the assessee, he has not provided relief pertaining to purchase cost for the said securities alleged to be sold by the assessee. In support of the aforesaid, he relied on the Hon'ble Special Courts order dated 29 09.2007 (page Nos. 563 to 594 of the APB No 2) wherein it held that the income would be the difference between the purchase price of the securities and the sale price. The relevant extract of the said order is as under: "9. ... In the assessment order, it is clearly mentioned by the Assessing Officer that delivery of these securities were made by Harshad Mehta. Therefore, it is obvious that according to the Assessing Officer this over sold securities position was made good by Harshad Mehta - the notified party. If that is so, it is nowhere explained as to why the price of the securities sold by Harshad Mehta would be his income. Really speaking, the income would be that amount which would be the difference between the purchase price of the securities and the sale price. I repeatedly asked the learned Counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department to justify treating the entire sale price of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Loan-2011. Initially the AO has computed the oversold position aggregating to ₹ 1681,79,84,180/- as given in Annexure M-2 enclosed at page 448 of APB No 2. Out of this amount, the AO vide order dated 29-03-1995 reduced a sum of ₹ 601.21 crores which consist of ₹ 441,48,92,433/- in respect of 11.5% Central Loan-2010 and ₹ 159,72,02,057/- Central Loan-2007 11.5% which is apparent from page 50 of APB No 1 consisting of said assessment order. When the assessee went in appeal, the CIT(A) during the course of 3rd round of appeal vide its order dated 28.06.2017, vide para 24.16 of his order directed the AO to verify the evidences submitted by the assessee during the course of the hearing before him and allow the necessary relief to the assessee out of the said addition on account of MMOP. The AO, consequently after giving the appeal effect passed an order dated02.05.2018 during the course of pendency of the appeal before this Tribunal. The AO vide its order dated02.05.2018 giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) dated 28.06.2017 gave the following relief out of the said addition of ₹ 1080.58 cr:- A. (As per para 24.22 of CIT(A)'s order dt 28.6.2017) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of details and supporting documents submitted by the assessee that there are some inconsistencies in Annexure M-2 which has resulted in incorrect oversold positions in the money market and ultimately he was satisfied about the inconsistencies in the statement being Annexure M-2. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify these evidences and then re-compute the position of the stock as also the addition of oversold position on account of aforesaid securities. We further noted that the CIT(A) before giving his finding and passing the order had given plenty of opportunity to the AO even forwarded copies of the APBs filed before him to the AO for his consideration, verification and remand report which is apparent from following para of the CIT(A): "7. Looking to the importance of matter and complexity of issues involved therein, both the AO and the Addl. CIT Range-4 were requested to attend the hearing vide this office letter dated 02/01/2017. Therefore the hearing held on 10 January 2017 was attended by the AO. Prior to that the Addl. CIT range 4 was also present on 03/01/2017. In the said hearing, the appellant was directed to forward copies of the paper books filed to the AO for h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment in view of said power being withdrawn by finance Act 2001, this contention of the Ld CIT-DR is misconceived. It is not a case where CIT(A) has set aside the assessment or directed the AO to make a fresh assessment. It is a case where the CIT(A) although accepted the contention of the assessee but subject to the verification to be carried out by the AO. The CIT(A) has not set aside the assessment. Direction given by this appellate authority to the lower authority for verification will not tantamount, in our opinion, to setting aside the assessment. It is a case where the CIT(A) gave the relief and allowed the ground of the assessee but subject to the verification by the AO. Such direction in our opinion falls within the power of the CIT(A) u/s 251 of the tax Act. In our opinion, what the CIT(A) has done is that he has directed the AO to do what he has not done while making an assessment. We, therefore, are of the view that once the AO after verification of the evidences and the material filed by the assessee, gave relief to the assessee. This proves that the AO was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to MMOP and to the extent he found explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has oversold 11.5% Central Loan-2011. 9.47. We further noted the letter of State Bank of India and M-2 appearing at page 445 as well as working of the AO at page 445 of APBNo.2 for the sum of ₹ 103,80,05,313/- found that the AO has incorrectly taken oversold stock in M-2 at page 445 of APB No.2 for 11.5%Central Loan-2011 and made the addition. We further noted that correspondingly in M-2 Page 445 APB 12% Central Loan-2011 shown in stock at cost price of ₹ 99 crores. These figures in our view are apparently reconciled. The Ld. CIT-DR has not controverted this fact. We therefore delete the addition of ₹ 103,80,05,313/- and accordingly ground No 7 is allowed. So far the sum of ₹ 13,60,72,871/- out of the sum of ₹ 223,83,58,173/- is concerned, the Ld AR even though vehemently contended but could not convince us by reconciling the figures on the basis of the evidences filed by him. We, therefore, sustain the addition of ₹ 13,60,72,871/-. 9.48. The next sum of ₹ 29,70,53,629/- included in ₹ 223,83,58,173/-relates to the 11.5% Central Loan-2010. We heard the rival submission and carefully considered the same. We noted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,83,58,173/-. After hearing the rival submissions and going through the orders of the authorities below, we noted that the AO made the said addition as per Annexure M-2 Page 445 of APB No.2. The assessee has asked for the details of such oversold units but no such details were provided to the assessee so that the assessee can contradict the same. Before us also the Ld Counsel taken the said contention but the Ld. CIT-DR even though relied on the order of the AO and brought voluminous record but could not bring to our knowledge any specific record or evidence which may prove that the assessee has sold such Units 64. In the absence of any evidence, which may prove that the assessee has oversold Units 64, we cannot sustain this addition and we are bound to delete the same. No addition can be made or sustained merely on the basis of the suspicion, howsoever strong it may be. Thus, the addition of ₹ 80,64,44,495/- stands deleted. In the result, Ground No. 6 is partly allowed while Ground No. 7 is allowed. 10. The next common issue in these appeals of assessee and Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition on account of Money market unexplained stock of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT(A), in the second round of appellate proceedings, directed the AO to identify the securities in Annexure M-5 which do not belong to assessee as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 01.11.2002. Subsequently, the AO vide order giving effect dated 20.01.2011 deleted the addition on account of Inter-corporate Deposits amounting to ₹ 50,00,000/-. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal (second round), wherein the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of AO vide its order dated 29.10.2014. Subsequently, the AO (third round of appellate proceedings) vide her order dated 15.03.2016 assessed money market unexplained stock at ₹ 290,55,41,290/- (Rs. 291,05,41,290/- less ₹ 50,00,00,000). The assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 28.06.2017, directed the AO to re-verify the securities amounting ₹ 174,37,23,243/- included in Annexure M-5 which do not belong to the assessee in light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Special Court dated 29.09.2007 and the order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 01.11.2002 and accordingly deleted such addition. Similarly, relief was also granted for securities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % HUDCO Bonds to the extent of ₹ 5 crores, as per Annexure M-5 (page No. 469 of APB No. 2) read with Annexure M-3 (page No. 449 of APB No. 2), ought to be deleted.Further without prejudice to the above, as per Annexure M-5, the AO has considered 4.82 crores of Unit-1964 Scheme as the unexplained stock of the assessee and accordingly taxed the same. Since, as per Annexure M-2 there exists no closing stock in case of Units-1964 Scheme but the entire stock of Units-1964 Scheme is considered as unexplained stock of the assessee. He has not been provided with the details of various transactions considered by the AO to compute the negative closing stock of Units 1964 Scheme. Hence, the assessee is not able to rebut whether the computation of the closing stock prepared by the AO in Annexure M-2 is correct. In the absence of such details of transactions, the addition made in respect of the said securities is not sustainable. Ld Counsel also explained that the CIT(A) in para No. 25.7 of the impugned order dated 28.06.2017, has incorrectly set aside the matter for re-verification by the AO. It was stated that during the course of the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) the AO was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore Bench, transaction wise chart has been enclosed herewith as per Annexure - B. 10.6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that in this case, the assessing officer sustained the addition after giving the appeal affect to the extent of ₹ 66,18,18,047/- vide order dated02.05.2018. The Ld. Counsel drawn our attention to MA No 215 filed by the assessee as well as other notified entities providing a repayment plan (page nos. 984 to 986 of APB No. 4) which was subsequently withdrawn. The AO taken it to be the sole evidence for making this addition but when the matter went before CIT(A), he vide order dated 28.06.2017 directed the AO to re-verify the securities amounting to ₹ 174,37,23,243/- for which the AO gave the relief to the assessee by passing a consequential order. Out of the balance addition, the Ld Counsel vehemently contended that 9%Hudco bonds are not traceable and similarly in respect of units having a value of 68,48,40,060/-, it was contended that the units having a face value of 37crores were claimed by SBI for which attention was drawn to page 1005 to 1062 of APB No 4 which contains the Misc. petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the receipt entry considered by the AO while making addition of ₹ 35.55 crores amount to ₹ 39,19,77,531/- received on 22.04.1991. A break-up of ₹ 39,19,77,531/- is as under: Date Receipt Amount (in Rs.) Narration (as per Annexure K) 22.04.1991 39,06,62,462 39 CR-CC Asset CNO 910420-B70 (SP 2097) 13,15,069 CC Asset FV 150 Cr CNO 910420-S62095 Total 39,19,77,531 11.4. He stated that out of the total receipt of ₹ 39,19,77,531/-on 22.04.1991, the AO has incorrectly considered a receipt of ₹ 39,06,62,462/-in respect of the sale of 'CC Asset' of 39 crores quantity. Based on the deal slip which forms part of the seized data, it can be observed that the abovementioned transaction amounting to ₹ 39,06,62,462/- entered on 20.04.1991 is on principal to principal basis and is also marked as 'RT' (page No. 620 of APB No. 2). Hence, it was argued that the said transaction was not squared-up on the same day as the transaction was executed on two different dates i.e. purchase transaction was undertaken on 20.04.1991 and sale transaction was undertaken on 22.04.1991 (deal file forming part of seized data is enclosed in page No. 620 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transactions only where the assessee has not acted as a Principal rather has squared up the transactions on the same day. This being so, the correlation made by the assessee is inconsistent. As it was mentioned, correlating transactions where delivery of the instrument has been made with the transactions accounted for only by debiting and crediting the difference without affecting the delivery is not justified. The assessee also pointed out the particular discrepancies with regard to CC Asset on the basis of incompatible references and sought to match the receipts in Annexure 'K' with the closing stock as found in Annexure M-2. As may be seen, in the case of Annexure M-2, the securities in question are backed up by delivery, whereas the AO has worked out the difference in respect of transactions where there were no deliveries as only the difference was debited or credited. Further, it was found that the figure of ₹ 38,70,34,463/- taken from Annexure M-2 is not a single transaction but the resultant figure of a series of transactions as mentioned in M-2 with reference to CC Asset. Apart from making this incompatible comparison, the assessee has not brought anything ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eciding the addition of interest receivable on Money market securities amounting to ₹ 58,27,13,670/-, erred in linking the same with the money market unexplained stock realization of ₹ 2,90,55,41,290/- which is related to ground No. 7 of assessee's grounds of appeal." 12.1. Brief facts relating to this issue are that the AO has made an addition of ₹ 58.27 crores on account of interest on money market securities in the original assessment order (page Nos. 48 to 49 of APB No. 1) based on stock of securities worked out by him as per Annexure M-1 and M-2 to the original assessment order dated 27.03.1995. The AO has determined the aforesaid addition of ₹ 58.27 crores on the following basis: "a) As per the working tabulated in Annexure-I (page No. 631 of APB No. 2) interest of ₹ 55.97 crores is computed on the presumed stock computed basis the seized documents and information gathered from external agencies; and b) Interest amount of ₹ 2.30 crores is computed on the securities disclosed by the Appellant in M.A. No. 215 of 1993 (enclosed on page Nos. 965 to 1003 of APB No. 4)." 12.2. The CIT(A) in para 27.9 on page No. 90 of the impugned order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide its order dated 12.03.2008 (page Nos. 672 to 675 of APB No. 2). In term of this, Ld Counsel argued that as per the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 the definition of 'securities' is wide and includes any marketable securities which shall also include money market securities. Hence, the contention of the Department that the said decisions are applicable to dividend income only and not interest income is incorrect. In the present case the securities were not registered in the name of the assessee and hence, the presumption that the interest of the said securities was earned by the assessee is not sustainable. 12.4. Further, it was claimed that Interest on securities not received by assessee and deals have been executed through Bankers Receipts (BR) and Subsidiary General Ledgers (SGL). Ld Counsel stated that as per the bank statements for the period ended 31.03.1992, out of the total interest addition of ₹ 58.27 crores, interest aggregating to ₹ 26,41,49,667/- has not been received in any of the bank accounts by the assessee and assessee once follow cash system of ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs, the relief granted may kindly be withdrawn. It was further mentioned that the CIT(A) has provided relief by relying on the decision of his predecessor. In this regard, the facts discussed by his predecessor CIT(A) vide Para 10.1 to 10.4.4 (page no. 99 to page no. 107) of the order were refereed wherein the CIT(A) has distinguished the facts and ratios of the decisions in the case of assessee as well as other group entities relied upon by assessee, order sheet noting of AY 1993-94, wherein assessee himself has admitted that he was following accrual method of accounting, the decision of ITAT in the case of assessee for AY 1988-89, legal provisions as per section 145 (second proviso) wherein it was mentioned that where no method of accounting is regularly employed by the assessee, any income by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to tax as the income of previous year in which such income is due to assessee. 12.7. We have heard rival contention and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We have perused the material submitted and referred before us. The uncontroverted facts relating to this issue are that the AO in his assessment order dated 27.03.95 worked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. Whether assessee has maintained books of account or not, if the assessee follows cash system to recognize income from interest and realize interest income only on actual receipts, the said system should be accepted and the interest should be considered only for actual receipts. Therefore, we find that the emphasis on the rejection of books of account, are overplayed by the authority. 5.28 The assessee is consistently following the cash system of accounting in respect of interest income. That is, he is recognizing interest income only on actual basis. This consistent position should not be overlooked on the ground that the other relatives of the assessee are recognizing interest income on mercantile basis. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the lower authorities were not justified in assuming interest income in the hands of the assessee on mercantile basis." 12.9. On this basis itself, the Ground taken by the assessee could not be fully allowed but since the assessee has not received the interest to the extent of ₹ 26,41,49,667/- in any of the bank account, the interest to that extent cannot be added in the income of the assessee. We, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord till date. In this regard, he reiterates his submissions made in respect of Grounds of Appeal Nos. 13 to 16, pertaining to the profit on sale of shares in shortage. Further, in addition to the above, he stated that shares were purchased and sold on behalf of clients or third parties, the information of which was not obtained by the AO. Further, it was argued that the assessee would have sold shares on behalf of third parties which may have been considered as sales of the assessee by the AO. In the absence of such information pertaining to third party purchases/sales and the basis for computing sale of shares, the assessee urged that share market trading profit ought not to be taxed in his hands. 13.3. Furthermore, the learned Counsel stated that all transactions pertaining to purchase and/or sale are through the normal banking channels i.e. in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and Bye laws framed by the stock exchange and further recognized by Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 and duly recorded in his books of account. All the transactions were reported to stock exchange on a daily basis. Without prejudice to the above, he argued that even where the data has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee on the basis of the information collected from the stock exchange and various brokers. In the subsequent appellate proceedings also, the addition was sustained. Even, in the third round of appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) vide his order dated 28.06.17 confirmed the addition. We note that the CIT(A) while confirming the addition took the view that the assessee has purchased and sold the securities on his own account and not on behalf of others even though the assessee has provided a chart giving complete particulars of the date of transaction, rate, quantity, nature of transaction and the name of the client, as is apparent from para 28.2 of the order of the CIT(A). We find force in the submission made by the Ld. Counsel that the addition of ₹ 16,02,65,407/- has been made and sustained on the basis of material collected by the AO as is available in Annexure S-1, which we have looked into. We further noted that CIT(A) while confirming the addition relied on the said annexure even though the AO has observed in the assessment order while dealing with the addition that the assessee was involved in share trading not only on his behalf but also on behalf of his clients. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 28.06.2017, upheld the addition. Aggrieved assessee came in second appeal before Tribunal. 14.2. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the facts in the given case of the assessee are similar to that of Ground of Appeal No. 5 in case of Shri Ashwin S Mehta for AY 1992-93 (Assessee's appeal No. 3427/Mum/2017). He placed reliance on the submissions made therein. Further, in this case also he stated that the AO till date has not provided the details and basis of preparation of Annexure S-2 wherein the speculative profit has been assessed. The assessee has not been granted any inspection of the material on which basis the speculative profit has been computed nor copy of the same have been provided. He also reiterated his submissions made in relation to the Ground of Appeal Nos. 13 to 16 in the case of the assessee. Further, the Department has not been able to rebut the submissions made before the Bench by the assessee. In view of the above, it was urged that the order of CIT(A) for sustaining the addition on account of share market speculative profit in absence of any details and information basis which the addition is made, cannot be upheld. 14.3. On the ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble Bench on the basis of findings given by predecessor Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 24.03.2010 from page 4 (para 3.0) to page 17 (para 3.4.3). On the basis of same appellate order and the order sheet notings (as enclosed vide page -378 to 527 of Revenue's Paper-Book-2), it was further brought in the knowledge of Hon'ble Bench that earlier also during the period 18.05.93 to 13.08.93, inspection of seized material was provided to appellant and after that, at the directions of Hon'ble Special Court, one more time during the year 1995, the inspection of seized material as well as information and material gathered from outside agencies such as BSE, RBI, CBI, ED, various companies, brokers, banks etc. with whom transactions were made by appellant, were provided to appellant. It was further apprised that during this period, all the data available in seized material, information received from various agencies/parties was converted into soft form in computers with the consent of appellant and was provided to AR of appellant to verify whether any corrections or modifications are required and after making corrections/modifications as suggested, final figures were arrived ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. The demonstration of the process as per this letter was done before Hon'ble Bench also as it was earlier given before the Ld. 01(A) as well as appellant as on 31.07.2009. 1.2 As mentioned above, the information contained in documents seized during the search proceedings and as collected from BSE, RBI and other third parties was converted into soft form with the consent of appellant during the inspection in the year 1995 and stored in magnetic tapes named Tape 'A' and Tape 'B' and subsequently transferred to Compact Disk (CD). This process was brought on record during the second round of appellate proceedings vide letterdated 31.07,2009, as above. However, as desired by Hon'ble Bench, a certificate in this regard that the data stored in Tape Cartridges and uploaded on the computer system during the year 1995 has been transferred to CD in original form , is being submitted separately as per Annexure-A. However, on the query raised in regards to data received from BSE and RBI, It was apprised to Hon'ble Bench, by mentioning the order sheet entries of inspection, that the said data was received by the AO in soft form (in magnetic tapes) only which was copie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ONT_NARR 40. NARR_1 41. NARR_2 GRAM>SETAVGD 42. ENTRY_STAT FALSE 43. ENTERED_BY 44. JRL_TRF FALSE 45. STK_TRF FALSE 2.1 In respect of Deal File Part-11 (Annexure M-1) also, it was shown that the data has been stored in identical columns for the period 28.02.1992 to 31.03.1992 in the file namely DMONY1.DBF, 2.2 It was further demonstrated that the data contained in the aforesaid files was again processed by filtering the transactions showing the 'T' (True) and 'RI' (Routed Through) status in their respective columns no. 42 (Entry Status), no. 13 (Sale Transaction), no. 29 (Buy/Purchase Transaction) of Deal Files and two new journal files namely DL91JR.DBF (for the period 01.04.1991 to 27.02.1992) & DMONY11R.DBF (for the period 28.02.1992 to 31.03.1992) were created. The structure of journal flies is shown in the following table by taking example of one transaction of security namely 11.50% C/L 2008. TABLE NO. 2 STRUCTURE OF DMONV1JR.DBF S.No First row First entry 1. Vchdat 920307 2. Quantity 250000000.00 3. Debit_amt 255127006.56 4. Credit_amt 5. Sec_short 11.50% C/L 2008 6. Sec_code CO8115 It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NO. 4:- STRUCTURE OF FIN 1.DBF S.NO HEADER FIRST ENTRY 1. SECNAME A.C.C. 2. CODE 410 3. OPST 65300 4. OPVAL 141701000.00 5. PURCH 208120 6. PURVAL 616290210.00 7. SAL 125170 8. SALVAL 359315981.00 9. DIFF 12312251.37 10. CLSSTK 148250 11. CLSVAL 410987480.37 12. RATE 13. ENTITY ASM 14. SQRUP 34859 15. SQRAV 96638869.33 16. SQR31 348592428.28 17. BENAMI 92133 18. UNREG 4529 19. TAG The Table Number 4 was lively demonstrated before Hon'ble Bench and ARs of assessee for preparation of Trading Account of scrips of ACC, Apollo Tyres and Castrol India. The same are shown in form of Table No. 5, 6 and 7 below. TABLE No. 5:- TRADIG ACCOUNT (ACC) Dr. Cr. Opening stock 120510950 Sales 463641799 Purchases 522183865 Closign stock 303413204 Total 642694815 Total 767054983 Profit 124360167 TABLE No. 6:- TRADIG ACCOUNT (Apollo Tyres) Dr. Cr. Opening stock 79828420.00 Sales 20542515.00 Purchases 3262455762.75 Closign stock 391855359.72 Total 406074182.75 Total 412397874.72 Profit 6323691.97 TABLE No. 7:- TRADIG AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der, which is subject matter of present appellate proceeding before Hon'ble ITAT, Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the order dated 24.03.2010 of his predecessor on the aforesaid subject but only selectively and partially. Therefore, the undersigned mentioned before Hon'ble Bench about the complete facts and findings of Ld.CIT(A) in his order dated 24.03.2010." 14.5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and the material available on record as well as the relevant documents and the paper book referred to during the course of hearing before us. We noted that the said addition of ₹ 2,85,26,994/- on account of speculative profit has been made by the AO on the basis of Annexure S-2 compiled by him on the basis of the material and information collected from various person at the back of the assessee which we perused. From the said statement, we noted that not only the name of the script but the name of the party are also given. This annexure is available at pg 696-702 of APB No. 3. It is not denied that the assessee was engaged in the business of dealing in shares on behalf of his clients. From this statement, it is not clear which transaction belonged to the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pholding the action of the AO in making addition of profit on account sale of shares in shortage based on assumptions and surmises. The Appellant prays that the AC be directed to delete the addition of profit on sale of shares in shortage. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in computing the profit on sale of shares in shortage without granting credit in respect of missing/stolen/ lost/ misplaced, mutilated shares, benami shares, shares seized by CBI and shares purchased on behalf of related and third parties. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to recompute the profit on sale of shares in shortage after granting appropriate credit. 15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not granting credit for additional benami shares disclosed in Miscellaneous Petition No.99 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Special Court. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to recompute the profit on sale of shares in shortage after granting appropriate credit. 16. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred further appeal before CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 28.06.2017, granted following relief to the assessee: "a) Credit of certain unregistered shares disclosed in letter dated 31.01.1995 of Shri Harshad S. Mehta to the Custodian (page Nos. 105 to 112 of impugned order dated 28.06.2017 in the appeal file); b) Credit of shares of Apollo Tyres Limited seized by CBI and lying in the custody of the CBI authorities (page Nos. 112 to 113 of the of impugned order dated 28.06.2017 in the appeal file); and c) Credit on account of mutilated shares of Apollo Tyres Limited (page No. 113 and 115 of the impugned order dated 28.06.2017 in the appeal file)." The methodology of computing profit on sale of shares in shortage adopted by AO is as under: - "The AO has computed the closing stock of shares of various companies acquired by the assessee on the basis of opening stock, purchases and sale of shares in Annexure S-1 (page Nos. 687 to 695 of APB No. 2). In doing so, he has taken closing stock of shares of last Assessment Year (i.e. AY 1991-92) as opening stock for AY 1992-93. Thereafter, he has gathered the details of purchases and sale of shares affected by the assessee from vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1992 (Custodian information, Company information, etc.) 1,19,036 1,06,07,201 Less: Sales from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1992 (Custodian information, Company information, etc.) (6,300) (10,86,200) Add: Trading profit / (Loss) 4,85,241 Closing stock as on 31.03.1992 (Balancing figure - Quantity) 1,33,586 1,27,42,805 Annexure S-3 Stock as on 31.03.1992 (As per Annexure S-1) [31M] A 1,33,586 1,53,601 Add/ Less: Adjustments (i.e. Purchase and sales for the period 01.04.1992 to 08.06.1992) [ADJ] B - 24,050 Position of stock as on 08.06.1992 [POS] C=A-B 1,33,586 1,77,651 Less: Registered shares [REG] D - - Less: Benami shares [BEN] E - - Less: Unregistered shares [UNR] F 1,654 2,200 No. of shares in Shortage [SHT] G=C-D-E-F 1,31,932 1,75,451 VAL H = G*Average rate 1,25,85,000 Average Purchase cost (as per Annexure S-1) (in Rs.) [AVERAGE RATE] 95.39 Sales Consideration (in Rs.) [SQR] I=G*Market rate as on 31.03.1992 2,63,86,339 Profit on sale of shares in shortage (in Rs.) [DIFF] I-H 1,38,01,339 15.3. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the facts in the given case of the assessee are similar to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing opportunity to inspect documents / data relied upon by the Assessing Officer,to grant opportunity to cross-examination and to furnish copies of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer. 3. 13.03.1995 ACIT C.C. 23 Request for furnishing copies of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer, to cross-examine each person and source of information relied upon by the Assessing Officer. 4. 14.03.1995 ACIT C.C. 23 Request to provide data relied upon by the Assessing Officer 5. 15.03.1995 ACIT C.C. 23 Request made to furnish copies of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer and to grant opportunity to cross-examine. 6. 22.03.1995 ACIT C.C. 23 Request made for granting opportunity to inspect documents / data relied upon by the Assessing Officer, to cross-examine and to furnish copies of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer. 7. 24.03.1995 ACIT C.C. 23 Grievance made that inspection or copies of material relied by Assessing Officer not provided. 8. 31.05.1995 ACIT C.C. 23 Grievance made that inspection of documents and material relied upon not given. Further, grievance made in relation to the false allegations that such opportu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer. Request made by the Appellant for providing opportunity of cross examination of the persons who have furnished the material. 20. 22.03.2016 DCIT C.C. 4(1) Grievance made that no inspection was given and that the assessment order was passed without any inspection. Further, request was made to disclose precisely the material used and manner in which it was used in arriving at the additions and also furnish itemized break up and computation regarding additions wherever the consolidated figures were used in assessment order. Request was also made to provide opportunity to cross examine Assessing Officer concerned who made computations basis the third party documents 15.5. The ld. Counsel made statement at bar that in spite of the above, the Income-tax Department never gave any break-up or supporting evidences based on which the huge additions are made. As discussed above, in ground No. 6 and 7 it is amply clear that the itemized break-up of various transactions considered by the AO in case of most of the money market securities were provided during the second round of litigation before CIT(A) in relation to addition on account of MMOP. On the basis of these details, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per observations of ours made in the order as above. We order accordingly." 6. … 7. ... 8. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities and the decisions brought to our notice which are placed in the paper book before us. We find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel, following the judicial decisions, findings of the Tribunal in the case of Hitesh Mehta mentioned hereinabove deserves to be followed. Respectfully following the findings of the Tribunal, we set aside the order of the authorities below and restore the issue to the files of the AO to pass assessment denovo in the line of the directions given by the Tribunal in the case of Hitesh S. Mehta vide ITA No. 538/M/2012. The AO is further directed to decide the issue in the light of the following lines. "(i) The Assessing Authority has to strictly follow the earlier orders of the Tribunal on respective subjects. (ii) Wherever the additions are proposed on the basis of seized material or materials collected from third parties, the copies thereof need to be provided to the assessee. If requested for, the assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ges do not pertain to the assessee [and for that matter do not also pertain to Shri Ashwin S Mehta (ASM) and Smt. Jyoti H. Mehta (JHM)] 14 - 15 On these pages it is mentioned that the RBI information is loaded on the computer and two files containing large number of data were created. It has been further mentioned that only those fields that were required for additions based on data received from the RBI were relevant. This information is in respect of the receipts and payments and do not have any relevance with any entry in Annexure S-1 and S-3. This does not explain the manner of working out purchase / sale of shares. Page no. 15 of the continuous order sheet is missing 16 On this page it is mentioned that inspection of data received from the RBI is provided. This information is in respect of the receipts and payments and do not have any relevance with any entry in Annexure S1 and S-3. This does not explain the manner of working out purchase / sale of shares. 17 On this page it is mentioned that inspection of data received from the RBI is provided. This information is in respect of the receipts and payments and do not have any relevance with any entry in Annexure S1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S-3. 40 - 45 These pages are pertaining to inspection of custodian / company information vis-à-vis figures appearing in the computer of Assessing Officer. This information does not have any relevance with any entry in Annexure S-1 and S-3. 46 - 47 These pages do not pertain to the assessee (and for that matter do not also pertain to ASM and JHM). 48 - 49 These pages do not pertain to the assessee. 50 - 52 These pages are pertaining to inspection of share transaction with broker / parties vis-à-vis figures appearing in the computer of Assessing Officer. This information does not have any relevance with any entry in Annexure S-1 and S-3 and also do not explain the manner of working out purchase / sale of shares. No corrections have been carried out in Annexure S-1 and S-3 till today. Further, the assessee also summarized its observations in respect of the various enclosures as per the Remand Report dated 12.03.2018 as under: Sr. No. Enclosure as per the Covering letter Appellant's observation a) Copies of order sheets (1 to 121 pages) Several pages are not readable. Also certain pages are missing. b) Remand Report Enclosure is missing c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time and again been asked to substantiate its claims/contentions on the basis of the evidences and supporting documents. The assessee has always been expected to have all the records of past 25 years even post the drastic consequences suffered by him and he mentioned the following consequences: - "a) The assessee is a notified person on and from 08.06.1992 because of which all his assets are under attachment. The assessee has not had any business nor he had any normalcy. b) All the staff members who were carrying on the business of the assessee and having firsthand knowledge have been dismissed from service by the Hon'ble Special Court. c) The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the assessee and his family to vacate all their offices at 48 hours' notice without giving any space to the assessee to house and store the records. Due to this the assessee was left with no choice but to abandon some of the records or put them in gunny bags losing complete control over them." 15.10. At this stage, Ld Counsel stated that it would be imperative to examine the facts and sequence of events leading to the present proceedings. It is submitted that in the proceedings before Hon'ble Supreme Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elate various details. The matter was adjourned over various days i.e. 24.01.2018, 01.02.2018, 12.02.2018, 26.02.2018, 15.03.2018, 22.03.2018, 27.03.2018, 02.05.2018 and 14.05.2018. On 26.02.2018, the Hon'ble Bench observed that the Income-tax Department is not serious in early disposal of these appeals. Whilst, on the said date the Hon'ble Bench adjourned the matter to 15.03.2018 and stated it to be strictly the last adjournment but it granted further time to the Income-tax Department. Subsequently, the AO located certain details in relation to TISCO (refer to Department's letter dated 21.03.2018). Though, the AO was asked to file the said details before the Bench, but no such details have been filed till date. 15.12. Further, the AO instead of bringing the evidences on record has vide his letter dated 20.04.2018, asked the assessee to provide details. This shows the Department's approach towards the said appeals. Subsequently, on 22.05.2018, the Income-tax Department requested the Bench to grant permission for use of projector to furnish the details of documents and calculations. Accordingly, on 24.05.2018 the Income-tax Department via a projector showed certain excel files cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovided. Further, in the aforementioned order sheet (on page Nos. 397 and 420), the Department has stated that the mistakes will be rectified. In none of the order sheets, it is mentioned that the mistakes have been rectified. Further, during the hearing on 24.05.2018, the Department also brought 9 -10 gunny bags and claimed that the files contained therein had the original data which was converted into soft copies and after processing the annexure were prepared. However, did the Department demonstrate any such working for any of the script and the so called original data brought by them. No other relevant details have been furnished by the Department before the Bench during the course of the appellate proceedings. 15.14. In terms of the above facts, it was argued that what will be the consequence of not giving details/evidences on record? The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the Order dated 17.11.2017 of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Growmore Leasing & Investment Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA no. 1219/Mum/2017 vide its order dated 27.12.2017, wherein it was held that if the information on the basis of which addition is made was never made available to the assessee, the addition is liable to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. The profit on sale of shares was determined at ₹ 3,31,20,180/-. The A.O. added this amount. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was contended that the information relied upon by the A.O. were either given to the assessee during the proceedings of A.Y. 1992-93 or during the proceedings for A.Y. 1993-94. It was further contended that the A.O. has computed the holding of shares from the information collected from different sources. It was further submitted that the working of opening stock is borrowed from the working given in A.Y. 1992-93 without any break-up and without any basis. After considering the facts and the submissions, the ld. CIT(A) at para 9.7 of his order observed that the A.O. did not give any breakup and the basis as to how the figures of sales and purchases were derived by him which fact was also admitted by the A.O. in the remand proceedings. At para 9.8, the ld. CIT(A) held "I find that during the course of present proceedings also, the things have not improved. The A.O. has still not been able to provide any break up or the details and information as to how the figure of profit on sale of shares have been derived by him in the assessment order. Thus, I find that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 Even though the Revenue has vehemently stated that copies of seized materials were made available to the assessee, no evidence is available on record. In these circumstances, we see no error in setting aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to give similar directions as already given in paragraphs above in respect of ground number 6 and 7. We are of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if copies of the seized materials are provided to the assessee even though it might have been provided in the past. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to furnish the copies of the details used by him in making an addition of ₹ 7,67,131/-." 15.18. Even on merits, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that addition is not sustainable due to various infirmities in the working adopted by the AO for computing profit on sale of shares in shortage. He, stated that in order to compute shortage of shares multiple assumptions were made by the AO as under: - "a) All transactions pertain to assessee himself and are not pertaining to his clients b) There are no missing / mutilated / stolen shares c) All the shares in shortage have been sold by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records of B.S.E. to the Assessing Officer." 15.21. In view of the above, he stated that CIT (A) order dated 24.03.2010 (second round of litigation), observed that details of transactions with outside clients that was placed before him by the assessee during the course of the proceedings could not be correlated with the working of the AO. Further, the CIT (A) vide his order dated 28.06.2017 (third round of litigation - page No. 118 of the impugned order), by placing reliance on his predecessor's order dated 29.02.2012 has not granted any relief. In this context, it was submitted that in absence of detailed working/itemized break-up of the amounts mentioned in Annexure S-1/S-3, the assessee could not correlate his submissions with the working of the AO. Hence, relief on account of purchases made on behalf of related parties and /or outside clients has not been granted till date. It was also explained that the transactions were undertaken for the family members and corporate entities, who are assessed by the same AO and under the same jurisdiction. These clients have reported all the transactions undertaken by them through the assessee and incomes earned thereon have already been br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid subsequent developments, emergence of facts, and the binding orders passed by Hon'ble Special Court. 15.23. Another presumption that all the shares in shortage have been sold by the assessee is without any basis. Ld Counsel in relation to the aforesaid assumption, refers to the following decisions of this Bench with facts similar to the case of the assessee: - "(i) Topaz Holding Private Limited vs. DCIT [ITA No. 2828/Mum/2001] (page Nos. 954 to 964 of APB No. 3) (ii) Pallavi Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT [ITA No. 1912/Mum/2000] (page Nos. 942 to 953 of APB No. 3)" 15.24. In the above cases, it is observed that the AO found purchase entries of certain shares in the books of the assessee, but did not find physical share certificates of the same. Accordingly, the AO alleged that the said shares were sold by the assessee. In view of the searches and inspections made in the business premises of the assessee, the assessee expressed its inability to produce the said shares since the same were not in its custody but the Tribunal held that: - "20. Now if the assessing officer wanted to proceed further and make out a positive case, that those shares were sold by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d parties. The presumption that the shares have been sold without any piece of direct or indirect evidence or explanation is bad in law and needs to be reconsidered and accordingly the entire addition deserves to be deleted. 15.26. The next aspect on issue is that all shares are sold in AY 1992-93 although shortage in shares is computed as on 08.6.1992. Ld Counsel stated that though the shortage in shares was computed as on 08.06.1992, the AO assumed that the shares were sold during the AY 1992-93 and accordingly, the addition was made in AY 1992-93.The AO himself has observed on page No. 4 of original assessment order dated 27.03.1995 that assessee has continued the business post 28.02.1992 (page No. 4 of APB No. 1).Further, CIT (A) in third round litigation has also observed, by placing reliance on the order dated 28.02.2017 in case of Shri Ashwin S Mehta for AY 1992-93,in para 30.2 on page No. 62 of his order (impugned order) that the assessee has continued the business upto 08.06.1992. It was contended that it is erroneous on the part of AO to compute shortage in shares, if any on 31.03.1992 as against on 08.06.1992. 15.27. The next aspect on this issue is that all shares are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue of the 'closing stock' is mentioned. No accounting principles state that the presumed sales are to be valued at the closing rate as on the last date of the financial year. Even referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 481 (SC), it was contended that the assessee is entitled to value the closing stock either at cost or market value whichever is lower. Valuation of stock cannot be a source of profit. 15.29. Another aspect of this issue is that all shares are sold in cash as the AO has assumed that all the shares are sold in cash. Ld Counsel stated that the assumption that the shares are sold in 'Cash' is incorrect. The AO has assumed that shares worth ₹ 1416 crores (total in case of Shri Ashwin S Mehta, Shri Harshad S Mehta and Smt. Jyoti H Mehta for AY 1992-93) were sold in 'Cash' that too on a single day i.e. 31.03.1992. This assumption has been made, even when not a single rupee was found in cash during the search operations conducted by the Income-tax Department or CBI. He argued that the presumption of sale of shares in cash is contrary to the Rules, Regulations, and Bye-laws governing the functioning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd round of litigation) had granted credit for such additional benami shares in the case of Shri. Ashwin Mehta and Smt. Jyoti Mehta for AY 1992-93. The assessee furnished relevant extract of the order of the CIT(A) in the case of Shri Ashwin S Mehta (page No. 922 to 927 of APB No. 2) along with the order giving effect (page No. 928 to 930 of APB No. 2) and relevant extract of the order of the CIT(A) in the case of Smt. Jyoti Mehta (page No. 931 to 934 of APB No. 3) along with the order giving effect (page No. 935 to 937 of APB No. 3). Therefore, it was urged that the additional benami shares belongs to the assessee and his family members and accordingly credit is required to be given. In this regard, the assessee submitted a chart with respect to additional benami shares for which credit ought to be given to the assessee on the same footing as in the case of Shri. Ashwin S Mehta and Smt. Jyoti H Mehta for AY 1992-93 (page Nos. 938 to 942 of APB No. 3). 15.32. On the other hand, Ld CIT-DR argued in regards to Profit on account of sale of shares in shortage of ₹ 253,16,78,501/-. He stated that the CIT(A) has directed the AO to re-compute the shortage of shares, relying upon hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Harsh Estates Pvt. Ltd. 16 Growmore Leasing 17 Growmore Asset Management 18 Growmore Exports 19 Fortune Holdings 20 Eminent Holdings 21 Divine Holdings 22 Cascade Holdings 23 Aatur Holdings 24 Orion Travels Pvt. Ltd. In the light of aforesaid facts, it was argued by Ld CIT-DR that unless the shares found subsequently are correlated with the specific entity/entities by matching the name of the share, date of transaction, distinctive number of share, details of payment, etc., it cannot be held that the said shares belong to assessee only. To establish the ownership of these shares, the assessee is required to match the entries/transactions of each share as it has been done in the case of money market transactions. Contrary to this, only a presumption has been drawn by assessee that all the shares found subsequently belong to the assessee and pertain to the year under consideration, without giving any proof to support his claim. Further, as regards the next issue of computation of sale value based on adoption of rate as on 31.03.1992, it was argued that, following the normal accounting principles, the closing rate as on 31.03.1992 needs to be adopted on the ground that tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll sales details through his bank accounts as available in this office and as provided by the assessee has been considered up to 8.6.92. Moreover, the assessee was requested to give complete details in respect of sales /lending of vast quantity of shares. But no details were furnished by the assessee. d) No specific details have been furnished by the assessee as to how many shares have not been delivered by which broker. No claim has been filed by the assessee against any broker in this regard. e) The contention of the assessee that a vast quantity of shares are stock misplaced etc. Is only an excuse for the following reasons:- i. Till date no FIR has been filed by the assessee nor any such information has been given by the assessee to the custodian in which all the properties of the assessee vests. ii. Value of the shares in shortage is worth hundreds of crores. It is not realistic that the assessee has not taken care of his assets. iii. No details of any efforts made by the assessee for recovering of alleged lost shares have been provided by the assessee. iv. There is no evidence except a mere self serving statement made by the assessee. f) There is no doubt that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) in the first round of appeal upheld the said addition. When the matter travelled to the tribunal, the tribunal vide its order dated 11th July, 2008 restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) by holding as under:- "14. We have considered the rival submissions. In our view the facts and circumstances explained above clearly warrant that the matter should be decided by the CIT(A) afresh. In this regard, we have already noticed that late Harshad Mehta expired during the pendency of the proceedings before the CIT(A). There was also considerable delay, for about six years in disposal of the appeal before the CIT(A). There was no representation on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A). Several developments had taken place in the case of the assessee in the interregnum period which all will have a bearing on the assessment of the correct total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1992-93. The benefit of the report of auditors Vyas & Vyas appointed by the Special Court was also not available when the proceedings concluded before the CIT(A). In the fitness of things the best course of action would be to set aside the order of the CIT(A), and remand the various issues aris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares of last Assessment Year (i.e. AY 1991-92) as opening stock for AY 1992-93. Thereafter, he has gathered the details of purchases and sale of shares affected by the assessee from various sources such as B.S.E. brokers, clients, financial institutions, companies, banks, receipt and payment details from RBI, information received from other entities from the group of the assessee etc. during the period 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1992 and for the period 01.04.1992 to 08.06.1992 without providing the copies of these information to the assessee for his rebuttal and without affording cross examination of the parties from where these information has been received even though the assessee made several request for the same before the revenue authorities. We have specifically directed the D.R. to provided all these information to the assessee but no such information was provided and ultimately revenue simply produced computerized compilation along with gunny bags but could not brought any cogent material or evidence before us supporting the source of the information on the basis of which the details of purchases and sales are compiled with. The assessing officer, based on the purchase and sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Ld DR. We do agree that onus is on the revenue to adduce main and supporting evidence on the basis of which the huge additions are made. Until these evidences and details are not provided, the assessee cannot rebut the same. Even a number of discrepancies were demonstrated in the quantity of registered shares mentioned in the Annexure S-3 to the AO when compared with the custodian's letter dt. 29.10.1993. Even a chart showing such discrepancies which we pursued was filed before us, the copy of which was given to revenue which was not contradicted by the ld DR. Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the firm view that natural justice demands that the assessee must be provided with the copies of all the relevant material, information and evidence collected by the AO at the back of the assessee for his rebuttal. Our aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of Hitesh S. Mehta (ITA No.538/M/2012), in which case also the bench has directed the AO to provide copies of all the information on the basis of which additions were made in the hand of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal are as under:- "……… ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Remand Report Enclosure is missing c) Letter of assessee's name (1 to 3 pages) Page no. 1 is assessee's letter asking for inspection. Page no. 2 to 5 is the photocopy of the order of the Hon'ble Special Court dated 24.08.1993 in Miscellaneous Application 41 of 1993 in relation to release of money towards advance tax is provided (photocopies are not readable). d) Dot matrix paper table (25 to 29 pages) These pages are not readable e) Mahzernama Page no. 1 specifies the name of the persons who shall take inspection. No further details are provided. Page Nos. 2 and 3 are Mahzernama and not assessee's letter. 15.40. On going through the annexure, we noticed that these are old correspondence between the assessee and the Department including some information that some document were provided to the assessee. When we confronted Ld DR regarding one item of addition i.e. shares of Reliance Industries of 24,41,679 shares, the learned Departmental Representative was asked what is the basis for putting allegation on the assessee that these shares belongs Shri Ashwin S. Mehta, one of the assessee of assessee group. The learned Addl. CIT Miss. Annu Kris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal assessment was made in the case of the assessee on 27.3.1995 and the matter is being hanging since then i.e. more than 25 years have passed but the revenue could not discharge its onus. The shortage so computed in our view is just based on estimate and surmises. The onus is on the revenue to prove that the assessee has earned the income. Even we noted that the assessing officer by working out the shortage on 8.6.92, assumed as if the assessee has sold all the shares as on 31.3.1992 i.e. in a single day and that too in cash although no such material or evidence being brought on record. If the shortage has been computed as on 8.6.92, how the sales can be assumed to take place as on 31.3.1992 and at the rate prevailing as on that date. There had been search and seizure action against the assessee and assessee group on 28.2.1992, the evidences regarding sales outside the books must have been found if the assessee made any sales. No such evidence being found in respect of unaccounted sales being made as otherwise such evidence would have been produced or brought before us by the revenue. This is the settled law that Suspicion whatever strong it may be, it cannot take the place of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions made before the Bench in relation to Ground of Appeal Nos. 13 to 16 pertaining to Profit on sale of shares in shortage. Therefore, it was prayed for decision of the impugned addition of ₹ 19,71,050/-on account of share market badla income. 16.3. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR argued that the addition pertains to Share Market badla income of ₹ 19,71,050/- confirmed by CIT(A) and he has discussed the issue in detail in Para 31.1. He argued that the assessee has not made any submission to negate this addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) relied upon the order of his Predecessor dated 24.03.2010 wherein this issue is discussed in detail in Para 11 of the order. It was argued that the assessee, despite being given multiple opportunities, has failed to explain the said transactions and has simply relied upon his unaudited books of account. 16.4. We have heard rival contention on this issue and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We also perused the annexure S-5, the copy of which is available at page 827-828 of paper Book 3. We noted that in this annexure the assessing officer merely mentioned the number of shares and value with the name of the company as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of APB No. 3) to the assessment order dated 27.03.1995. The CIT(A), during the first round of litigation upheld the addition made by the AO, however, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of AO vide its order dated 11.07.2008. Consequently, the CIT(A) in his order dated 24.03.2010 (second round of litigation) computed share market oversold position same as in the original assessment order at ₹ 5,56,19,836/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the net addition that survived after the second round of litigation. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the AO vide its order dated 29.10.2014 (page No. 368 of APB No. 1). The AO, subsequently vide her order dated 15.03.2016 (third round of litigation) assessed profit on sale of shares in shortage as assessed in the original assessment order after considering the relief granted by the CIT(A) in the second round of litigation at ₹ 5,56,19,836/-. The assessee preferred further appeal before CIT(A). Vide impugned order dated 15.03.2017, CIT (A) has granted relief on account of purchase cost without quantifying the purchase cost, but merely has given direction to the AO to recompute the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oversold position, the addition made is erroneous. Further it was clarified that all the transactions pertaining to purchase and / or sale are through the normal banking channels i.e. in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and Bye laws framed by the stock exchange and further recognized by Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 and duly recorded in his books of account. All the transactions were reported to stock exchange on a daily basis. In view of the above submissions, the decision of the CIT(A) cannot be upheld. 17.5. On the other hand, Ld CIT-DR argued on the addition relating to Share Market oversold position of ₹ 5,56,19,836/-. He stated that CIT(A) in his order has not given any independent finding on this ground and in para no.32.6 of his order, has simply directed the AO to grant deduction to the extent of purchase cost in relation to the scrips held to be oversold, if such cost is not already allowed as per the Annexure S-1 to the original assessment order. In a very unclear manner, the CIT(A) has stated that the AO may take help of Annexure S-3 to the original order or actual purchase cost to the assessee, if he can prove it or market rates as on 31.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided any such evidence and the material neither to the assessee nor before us. The Ld. DR taken the similar arguments in this regard as has been taken in respect of ground no. 13 to 16 by submitting the remand report and bringing the gunny bags but without referring or producing material relevant to the information compiled in annexure S-1 prepared for working out the addition made for oversold scripts. In our view, if the revenue is making any addition, onus is on the revenue to prove that the assessee has earned the income. The revenue since has not produced any material or evidence to prove that the assessee has earned this income during the year, the addition so made cannot survive. We, therefore, delete the said addition. Thus, the ground no.18 of assessee's appeal is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed. 18. The next issue raised by the assessee in his appeal is as regards to the addition of ₹ 1,04,58,970/- on account of Dividend and Interest income. Ld counsel for the assessee as discussed during the course of the hearing, this ground was not pressed. As this Ground No.19 is not pressed, the same is dismissed. 19. The next common issue raised by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of ₹ 75,08,97,945/- is confirmed by the CIT (A), by placing reliance on the CIT(A)'s order dated 24.03.2010 (second round of litigation) without giving any independent finding on the submission made and evidence filed and brought to the knowledge of CIT(A), wherein it is incorrectly held that the transactions concerned were not there in the deal file for the relevant period (page No. 132 of APB No. 1). He stated that the total deposit of ₹ 75,08,97,945/- on 28.03.1992 pertains to three transactions amounting to ₹ 20,01,47,945/-; ₹ 30,00,00,000/-and ₹ 25,07,50,000/-. 19.3. Similarly, in para No. 34.8 on page No. 131 of the impugned order dated 28.06.2017, the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition to the extent of ₹ 47,96,68,170/- by placing reliance on CIT(A)'s order dated 24.03.2010 (second round of litigation), wherein it is incorrectly held that the said transaction referred to in the Annexure U (page No. 1071 of APB No. 4) and that in Annexure M-1 are different (page No. 433 of APB No. 2). In view of the above, he submitted a detailed chart explaining the nature of the aforesaid deposits amounting to ₹ 123,05,66,115/- which have been ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rores Units 1964 Scheme for a consideration of ₹ 25,07,50,000/- from the Appellant. The relevant page of the 'Blue Deal Diary' is Document No. 2 of the list of documents forming part of the Charge-sheet for Special Case No. 4 of 1993. - Further, the Appellant submits that the deal has been executed in the month of March 1992 and hence does not form part of the deal file seized by the Income-tax Department. 4 25.03.1992 47,96,68,170 ANZ Grindlays Bank vide its letter dated 7.12.1992 (page No. 1080 of APB No. 4) addressed to the Income-tax Office has provided details of transactions entered by it with the Appellant. As per the given list ANZ Grindlays Bank has purchased 11.5% Central Loan 2008 with FV of 50 crores from Appellant on 25.03.1992 for an amount of ₹ 47,96,68,170/- (transaction listed on page No. 1082 of APB No. 4). It is to be noted that the list of transaction is provided from ANZ Grindlays Bank's perspective. Accordingly, the transaction marked as 'P' in the letter is a purchase from the Bank's perspective, and the same transaction is a sale transaction from Appellant's perspective (page No. 1082 of APB No. 4). The Appellant also places ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the self- serving evidence of assessee and allowed relief in respect of all unexplained deposits. It was, therefore, argued that from where these figures have been obtained, on what account this relief has been granted, is not decided by the CIT(A). There are several entries in the bank account of the assessee which are not explained by him to the satisfaction of the Revenue. From the details of the bank accounts of assessee provided by the RBI, the receipts and payments mentioned in the accounts were matched with the 'voucher file' available in the seized computer data of the assessee. The AO had prepared the accounts of all the parties from whom money was received/paid and provided them to the assessee in the form of computer print outs requiring him to explain the source and nature of the funds of the mismatched entries. The assessee preferred to give only partial details. In this backdrop, Annexure-U was prepared by the AO specifying the entries on which the assessee did not furnish the details. The assessee was not able to explain the source and nature of fund of ₹ 251,18,33,835/- deposited in his bank accounts and therefore, it was requested to sustain the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e list of documents forming part of the Charge-sheet for Special Case No. 4 of 1993. - Further, the Appellant submits that the deal has been executed in the month of March 1992 and hence does not form part of the deal file seized by the Income-tax Department. 28.03.1992 30,00,00,000 The said amount is received on sale of 2 crores Units 1964 Scheme to SBI Caps under Ready Forward leg. (Relevant deal slip is enclosed in page No. 1076 of APB No. 4). The said security was reversed (i.e. repurchased by the Appellant from SBI Caps) on 30.03.1992 for an amount of ₹ 30,08,22,000 (Relevant deal slip is enclosed in page No. 1076 of APB No. 4). The relevant extract of the 'Blue Deal Diary' for 28.03.1992 (page No. 1078 of APB No. 4) maintained by SBI Caps states that SBI Caps has purchased 2 crores Units 1964 Scheme for a consideration of ₹ 30,00,00,000/- from the Appellant. The relevant page of the 'Blue Deal Diary' is Document No. 2 of the list of documents forming part of the Charge-sheet for Special Case No. 4 of 1993. - Further, the Appellant submits that the deal has been executed in the month of March 1992 and hence does not form part of the deal file seized by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount. We, therefore, delete the said addition. 19.9. For the sum of ₹ 1,80,50,965/-, we perused the explanation given by the ld. AR to which we could not be satisfied. In our view, once the assessee has deposited the money in his bank account, the onus lies on the assessee to explain the nature and source of such deposit consisting of each and every entry. In the absence of onus being discharged by the assessee, we sustain the addition of ₹ 1,80,50,965/-. 19.10. So far the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) amounting to ₹ 25,48,16,855/- is concerned, we do not find illegality or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the said addition and this amount also in our view cannot be regarded to be the unexplained money. Thus, the ground taken by the revenue is dismissed while the ground taken by the assessee is partly allowed. 20. The next issue raised by the assessee is as regards to the addition of ₹ 12,00,00,000/- on account of transactions with Mr. Niranjan J. Shah. For this, assessee has raised the following ground No.21: - "21. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the actio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is evident from para (ix) of the letter dated 13.01.2010 addressed to the CIT(A) (enclosed on page nos. 1083 to 1089 of APB No. 4) requesting cross examination of Mr. Niranjan Shah. The assessee relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Straptex (India) (p) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 84 ITD 0320 (Bom. Trib.), wherein Tribunal while referring to the search conducted in May 1992 at the residence of Shri. Niranjan Shah has held that the statements and material given by him could not have been used against the assessee for the following reasons: - a) The assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Niranjan Shah b) Mr. Niranjan Shah had retracted his statement vide his declaration dated 23.09.1994 before the Notary Public. 20.3. It was argued that CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue by simply relying on the order of his predecessor & hence, prayed to delete the addition of ₹ 12 crores on account of the alleged transactions with Mr. Niranjan Shah. 20.4. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR stated that addition on account of transactions with Shri Niranjan Shah amounting to ₹ 12 crores is confirmed by the CIT(A) relying on the order of his predecessor. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessor at great length, when he enhanced this addition to ₹ 12 Cr. Therefore nothing more need to be examined or discussed on this issue. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that addition on ₹ 12 Cr made on the basis of Janakiraman committee report (JPC) is fully justified. The same is therefore upheld. Consequently this ground of appeal of the assessee is rejected." 20.7. It is not denied by the Ld. DR that the addition has been made and sustained on the basis of documents seized from the premises of the third party, the statement of the third party as well as the report of JPC. We, therefore noted that the assessee has asked before assessing officer and CIT(A) the cross examination of the Niranjan Shah, third party from time to time but the opportunity was not given to the assessee. This fact is also apparent from page 1083 to 1089 of the paper book no.4 which was referred to us during the course of the hearing. On this basis itself, since Niranjan Shah is the third party and witness of the revenue, the addition made is bound to be deleted following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the "Harshad Mehta" referred to in the seized document was assessee or some other individual named "Harshad Mehta". The AO has failed to discharge his onus of examining how the aforesaid amounts constitute the income of the assessee. The CIT(A) also confirmed the addition. Aggrieved, assessee came in second appeal before Tribunal. 21.2. Before us, it was contended that the assessee had requested the AO vide his letter dated 20.02.1995 to provide a clear copy of the seized document as the one provided to him was illegible. However, the AO did not provide the same and showed his inability because he himself was not having a legible copy. Accordingly, in the absence of a clear copy of the seized document, no reply could be filed by the assessee to explain the same. Further, the Income-tax Department was not able to controvert the submissions and the evidences submitted by the assessee during the course of the appellate proceedings. In view of the above, it was prayed that the addition of ₹ 62,50,000/- on account of alleged payment to June Investments Pvt. Ltd. being not sustainable in law and is liable to be deleted. 21.3. On the other hand, the ld. CIT DR argued that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/-. The appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the addition of ₹ 118500000/- on account of interest receivable from the family members." 22.1. The brief facts relating to this issue are that during the course of second round of proceedings before the CIT(A), enhancement was made on the basis of Review of Unaudited Accounts by M/s Vyas &Vyas Chartered Accountants, wherein it was observed that 'interest should have been credited in the books of Harshad S Mehta, which had not been accounted for'. The aforesaid observation was made by M/s Vyas & Vyas Chartered Accountants after studying the Audit Reports of Harshad Mehta's family members. On the basis of the above-mentioned observation of M/s Vyas & Vyas, the CIT(A) made an enhancement under section 251 of the Act for an amount of ₹ 11,85,00,000/- as Interest Income from related parties vide his order dated 24.03.2010 (page nos. 341 to 344 of APB No.1). The CIT(A) in subsequent appellate proceedings also confirmed the said addition on the basis of the order dt.24.3.10. Aggrieved assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal. 22.2. Before us, assessee reiterated the submissions made before CIT(A) that no paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's own case for AY 1988-89, Tribunal has rejected assessee's claim for cash basis of accounting. In relation to the same, the assessee stated that the aforesaid order for AY 1988-89 has already been dealt with by the Tribunal in the appeal for AY 1989-90 in para No. 5.27 on page No. 1112 to 1113 of APB No. 4 wherein cash basis of accounting has been upheld irrespective of whether the books of account are maintained or not. In view of the above, it was requested to delete the addition of ₹ 11,85,00,000/- on account of the alleged interest income receivable from related parties. 22.4. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR stated that this pertains to addition on account of interest receivable from the family members amounting to ₹ 11,85,00,000/- .This addition has been made regarding interest accrued to the assessee's family members. The contention of the assessee that he was following cash system of accounting was incorrect, as no books were maintained by him and even ITAT in earlier years had not accepted the argument of assessee regarding cash system of accounting. The issue is discussed at page 138 and 139 at para 37.1 to 37.5 of CIT(A) and the addition has been conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not deny that the assessee was following the cash system of accounting in respect of interest income. We, therefore following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of the assessee for AY 89-90 in ITA no. 637/Mum/2007 set aside the order of the AO on this issue and delete the addition of ₹ 11,85,00,000/-. Thus, the ground no 23 of assessee's appeal is allowed. 23. The next issue relates to the enhancement of ₹ 372,82,14,642/- on account of alleged differences in the books of account. For this, assessee raised the following ground No. 24: - "24. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in making an addition of ₹ 3728214642/- on account of alleged difference in the books of the appellant and in the books of Shri Ashwin S. Mehta and Smt. Jyoti H Mehta by ignoring the reconciliation of accounts and various submissions of the appellant. The appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the addition of ₹ 3728214642/-. 23.1. The brief facts relating to this issue are that during the course of second round of proceedings the CIT(A) vide order dated 24.03.2010 made an enhan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove details were already submitted to the AO and CIT (A) during the third round of litigation. No discrepancies were found by the AO or the CIT(A) in the said reconciliation. Further, it was submitted that all the above transactions are undertaken through banking channels and there is no involvement of cash. During the course of hearing on 01.02.2018, the bench once again directed the AO to verify Ledger Accounts in the books of Shri Ashwin S. Mehta, Smt. Jyoti H. Mehta and Shri Harshad S. Mehta during the course of the proceedings itself. Admittedly, no discrepancies have been found by the AO till date. Further, the Income-tax Department was not able to controvert the submissions and the evidences submitted during the course of the appellate proceedings. Without prejudice to the above, a conceptual argument is made that the AO and CIT(A) have always held that the books of account are unreliable and hence not considered for computing income of the assessee. However, at the same time in order to make a high pitched addition, the sole basis of this addition is the books of account. The Income-tax Department cannot be allowed to pick and choose a few aspects from the books of accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring personal as well as proprietorship account in both the cases and worked out the difference only at ₹ 3,86,66,780/- for which the chart is available at page 793 to 797 of the APB in the case of Ashwin Mehta. The assessee has also submitted complete reconciliation in these cases and ultimate difference unreconciled of their inter account considering their proprietorship concern also came to ₹ 2,18,397/- only. In the case of Jyoti Mehta also, while making detailed submission in respect of ground no 15 it was worked out that ultimately there was no difference and the difference unreconciled remains between Ashwin Mehta and Harshad Mehta to the extent of ₹ 2,80,397/-. We therefore reduce the addition to ₹ 218397/-. Thus, the ground no 24 of assessee's appeal is partly allowed. 24. The next issue raised by the assessee in his appeal is as regards to addition on account of alleged liabilities shown as other income amounting to ₹ 69,63,00,000/-. For this, assessee has raised the following ground No 25: "25. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in making addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r A.Y. 1992-93 is incorrect. He stated that the so called income computed by M/s Vyas & Vyas as 'Other income' is largely in the nature of notional interest income based on certain presumptions and conjectures of M/s. Vyas & Vyas, Chartered Accountants. The income arrived at by Chartered Accountants has neither been earned nor actually received and the AO has not established that the assessee has either earned or received any income as computed by M/s Vyas & Vyas. There is no effort made to establish actual utilization of monies by M/s Harshad S Mehta and the income generated thereon, if any, nor has the AO carried out such an exercise. 24.3. Even factually, the letter dated 30.11.2009 addressed by M/s Vyas & Vyas, Chartered Accountants to the AO (page Nos. 1162 to 1173 of APB No. 5) wherein the Chartered Accountants have themselves admitted that the material received by them was not 100% correct (page No 1162 of APB No. 5). Relevant extract of the letter is reproduced below: "5. We wrote letters to banks, financial institutions and other related parties. Some of the banks etc. responded in limited words, saying "Degrees (Decrees) have been passed" some have not responded at all. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said addition has been made mainly on estimate basis on account of liabilities which were shown as other income in the review of the unaudited accounts of the assessee prepared by M/s Vyas & Vyas as on 8.6.1992 when the search has taken place. It was noted that the liabilities were to the extent of ₹ 83,51,53,713/-. In the 2nd ground of the appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) on the basis of the order of his predecessor dt. 24.3.2010 made an enhancement out of the said sum for ₹ 13,91,00,000/- in AY 93-94 and the balance amount of ₹ 69,63,00,000/- in the impugned assessment year. The ld. AR therefore contended that this income is simply based on certain presumption of M/s Vyas & Vyas, chartered accountants, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the assessee has earned or received any such income. During the course of hearing, we specifically asked the ld. DR the basis of this income. From page 1163 of the APB no 5, we noted that M/s Vyas & Vyas, chartered accountants, vide para 9 of his letter dt. 30.11.2009 computed the figure of 83.51 crores taking the interest rate at 16% on the funds illegally utilised by the assessee belonging to banks. The relevant par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not argued and dismissed being general ground and need no specific adjudication. 26. The next ground No. 27 of assessee's appeal is regarding rejection of Cash System of Accounting followed by the assessee. We find that this ground has been discussed in detail while dealing with the Ground of Appeal No. 23 in relation to enhancement of income on account of interest receivable from family members on mercantile basis. Accordingly, the findings given there stands. No specific adjudication is required. 27. The next ground No. 28 of assessee's appeal is as regards to set-off of addition made on account of sources of income against the expenses/ investment/application of such source based on telescoping theory. We find that this ground of appeal is similar to ground of appeal No. 14 in case of Shri Ashwin S Mehta (Assessee's appeal No. 3427/Mum/2017). We, therefore, direct the AO that in case any addition is survived in the preceding paragraphs on account of unexplained receipts or profit on trading in shares and also on account of unexplained investments or expenditures, to allow set off and telescoped of these additions and such unexplained investments or unexplained expenditures sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n directing the AO not to charge interest u/s 220(2) of the Act from the date of original assessment, but only from the date of re-assessment in the case of the assessee without appreciating the fact that demand becomes due from the date of original assessment." "10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Girnar has held that assessee is liable to pay interest u/s 220(2) from the date of original orfder u/s 143(3) dated 7.10.1997 till the date of final payment." 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not considering provisions of section 240(a) of IT Act, wherein demand does not cease to exist when the order is set aside by an appellate authority until a consequential assessment is made by the assessing officer". 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the CBDT's circular no. 334 dt. 3.4.1982 wherein it has been clarified that where assessment made originally by the assessing officer is either varied or set aside by one appellate authority but, on further a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or collectible at source in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII on any income which is subject to such deduction or collection] and which is taken into account in computing such total income." 29.3. However, in the given case no valid effective return of income has been filed for the year under consideration. Accordingly, in absence of any return of income for AY 1992-93, the provisions of section 234C of the Act are not attracted and thus no interest ought to be levied. 30. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is regarding levy of interest under section 234B of the Act and is chargeable only upto the date of original assessment order. For this, assessee has raised the following ground No. 34 & 35 as under: - 34. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in assuming jurisdiction while directing the AO to consider charging interest under section 234B of the Act from the date of the original assessment order upto the date of the fresh assessment order (i.e. from 27.03.11995 to 22.03.2016), even when the AO himself h as correctly computed interested upto the date of the original assessment order i.e. 27.03.1995, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, where in any financial year, an assessee who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or, where the advance tax paid by such assessee under the provisions of section 210 is less than ninety per cent of the assessed tax, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of two per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period from the 1st day of April next following such financial year [to the date of determination of total income under sub-section (1) of section 143 or regular assessment], on an amount equal to the assessed tax or, as the case may be, on the amount by which the advance tax paid as aforesaid falls short of the assessed tax." 30.3. In case, where it is intended by the legislature that interest u/s 234B should be computed up to any date other than the regular assessment, specific exception has been inserted u/s 234B by way of sub-section (2A) u/s 234B of the Act to cover cases where application has been made to the Settlement Commission. Therefore, it is imperative that interest u/s 234B in other cases like that of the assessee, the period up to which interest u/s 234B can be considered is only up to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t such fresh assessment orders may be treated as regular assessment, having regard to the scheme of the Act, we are of the view that this contention is misconceived. The language of the various sections of the statute and the underlying principle which we have explained in this judgment militate against such construction. . . .(A) Section 214 contains unmistakable and irrefutable indications that 'regular assessment' therein means the original assessment alone. They are : (i) sub-section (1A) as substituted by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 with effect from 1-4-1985 says that "where as a result of an order under section 250*... the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be... "the interest shall also be increased or decreased correspondingly. Now, if regular assessment means the final assessment made after and pursuant to the appellate order under section 250, then the sub-section becomes meaningless. . ." 30.6. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while deciding the meaning of the term 'regular assessment' the unmistakable conclusion is that the said term cannot mean and said to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r these provisions. 30.8. We heard the rival submissions and considered the same carefully. These grounds relate to the levy and computation of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Levy of interest is mandatory. We, therefore, dismiss ground no 31 regarding levy of interest, but direct the AO in respect of ground no.32 and 33 that the interest levied under section 234A,234B and 234C be recomputed after excluding the income which is subject to TDS. So far as the issue relating to the levy of interest u/s 234B till the date of original assessment or upto the date of the assessment subsequently made after it being set aside by the appellate authorities is concerned, we have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. vs CIT [1995] 216 ITR 759 (SC) as well as the provisions of s. 234B. Section 234B(1) clearly states that the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 2% for every month or part of the month comprised in the period from 1stApril next following such financial year to the date of determination of total income u/s 143(1) or regular assessment under section 143(3) or section 144 of the Act. Regular asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 294 (SC). In this case it was held that the charging section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code. When there is a case to which the computation provisions cannot apply at all, it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. In this case before us, there is a failure of computation of interest provision due to non-filing of valid return by the assessee, interest u/s 234C cannot be levied and we accordingly direct the AO not to charge interest u/s 234C. 30.10. Now, coming to the various grounds taken by the Revenue being ground no. 9 to 12 regarding the levy of interest u/s 220(2) of the Act. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same. We noted that this Tribunal vide its order dt. 20.01.2017 in the case of M/s Orion Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (ITA 939/MUM/2009) in which the Tribunal directed the AO to charge interest u/s 220(2) under Income Tax Act after 30 days of serving of demand notice from the fresh assessment order. We, therefore, noted that in the case of CIT vs. Chika Overseas Pvt. Ltd [2012] 247 CTR 134 (Bombay), has taken the similar view. The decision Hon'ble Delhi High court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's contention that principles of natural justice were not complied with during the course of assessment. The Appellant prays that the order of the AO be quashed as it is bad in law." 33.1. The above ground deals with the issue of assessment as bad in law & violation of principles of natural justice. The assessee has not made any specific argument, but sated that same would be dealt with along with the other grounds of appeal concerning specific additions made by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the same are dismissed as not argued. 34. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in rejecting the books of account. For this, assessee has raised the following ground No. 3: - "3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in ignoring the specific directions of the Hon'ble ITAT and in rejecting the books of account of the Appellant. The Appellant prays that as held in the ITAT order, the books of accounts be accepted and the income be assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of account Looking to the facts of the case, one cannot disagree with the fact that no books of account were prepared till 2001 for financial year ended on 31 March 1992. Hence the observation made by my Id predecessor that in most probability the books of account which are being produced by the Appellant were created after a long period of time, the source, of which is either not known or considerably doubtful cannot be denied Further, since the books of account have not been audited by the chartered accountant I find that the books of account are not liable to be accepted for the purpose of determining the income of the Appellant Also the AO in his order has stated that the Appellant has once again submitted only the photocopies of old voluminous documents without taking any efforts to explain entry-to-entry transactions. Considering the lack of cooperation from the Appellant's end the AC'S decision that the books of account are not reliable it justified 18 In view of the above facts and observations, I agree with the view take, by my predecessors and the AO time and again with respect to the rejection of books of account Hence, the decision of the AO in rejecting the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta and Harshad Mehta despite the fact that, the assessee was not able to produce these shares before the AO and also could not explain as to where these shares were lying till the date of the order. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee has proved the availability of 7,40,000 shares of Apollo Tyres being in the custody of CBI authorities and 1,38,790 shares of the company being mutilated and therefore credit for the same should be given to the assessee." 35.1. Brief facts are that the AO in his original assessment order dated 27.03.199S made an addition of ₹ 309.47 crores on account of profit on sale of shares in shortage (page Nos. 10 to 77 of APB No. 1 r. w. Annexure S-1 (page Nos. 340 to 347 of APB No. 2) and Annexure S-3 (page Nos. 357 to 467 of APB No. 2)] The CIT(A) upheld the said addition made by the AO. Subsequently, Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of AO. The AO once again determined the profit on sale of shares at ₹ 309.47 crores Subsequently, the CIT (A) vide his order dated 29.02.2012 in the second round of litigation granted relief aggregating to ₹ 125.68 crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of notification under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 ('TORT Act')) by adjusting the purchases and / or sales transactions undertaken during the period 01.04.1992 to 08.06.1992. Further, the AO computed physical stock of the assessee as on 08.06.1992, which comprised of the: - a) registered holdings with the companies b) other Benami shares declared by the assessee and c) unregistered shares held by the assessee. 35.4. Thereafter, the AO compared the physical stock with the stock as on 08.06.1992 and computed shortage in shares in the hands of the assessee in Annexure S-3 (page Nos. 357 to 467 of APB No. 2) for AY 1992-93. 35.5. The AO treated the shortage of shares as having been sold by the assessee on 31.03.1992 and accordingly has applied the market rate of these shares as on 31.03.1992 to arrive at sale consideration of such shares. After reducing the cost of acquisition of such shares, the AO has arrived at the profit on sale of shares in shortage at ₹ 309.47 crores and the same has been added as income. In case of excess of the physical stock of shares vis-â-vis the stock computed by the AO, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, hence, taking a consistent view, we delete the addition confirmed by the CIT(A). The order of CIT(A) is confirmed to the extent it has deleted the addition. The ground of Revenue's appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee's appeal is allowed. 36. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the addition of ₹ 3,12,74,722/- on account of Badla income. For this assessee has raised the following Ground No. 7: - "7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in making an addition of ₹ 3,12,74,722 on account of share market badla income. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the addition of ₹ 3,12,74,722 on account of share market badla income." 36.1. The AO made addition of ₹ 3,12,74,722/ on account of badla income as per Annexure S-5 (page Nos. 480 to 499 of APB No. 2) attached to the original assessment order dated 27.03.1995 (page No. 27 and 28 of APB No 1). The AO mentioned that the details of badla transactions carried out by the assessee on the floor of the exchange were obtained from BSE. The AO has taxed the net profit of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and additional ground no. 19 of the Assessee's Appeal. The above mentioned additional ground of appeals are related to the ground of appeal No. 8 and hence, the facts and circumstances for the said addition is the same as in the case of Ground of Appeal No. 8 herein above. As explained earlier it is evident that in Annexure S-1, the AO has not considered the purchase cost and made addition of the entire sales value of the such shares held to be oversold. The assessee contended that what ought to be taxed in the hands of the assessee is only the trading profit and not the gross receipt from sale of such shares. The CIT(A) in para No. 32 on page No 66 of the impugned order agreed to the assessee's contention that the purchase cost be allowed as deduction before computation of profits. Accordingly, the CIT(A) has directed the AO to grant deduction to the extent of purchase cost in relation to the scrips held to be oversold, if such cost is not already allowed as per Annexure S-1 to the original assessment order. The assessee urged that the AO has not deducted the purchase cost from the oversold shares and hence the direction of the CIT(A) to deduct cost by using the phrase 'if su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cost, but merely has given direction to the AO to recompute the oversold position (page No. 66 to 67 of the impugned order). 37.3. The contention of assessee was that the Income-tax Department has not provided details, break-up and evidence along with the basis of preparation of Annexure S-1, through which the addition on account of share market oversold position is made. We also noted from records that numerous opportunities were provided by the Bench during the proceedings but the Department failed to provide such details. Hence, we agree with the contention of the assessee that the addition on account of share market oversold position is not sustainable in law since the relevant material relied upon by the AO for computing the additions has never been brought on record till date. 37.4. In view of the above, it can be presumed that that shares were purchased and sold on behalf of clients or third parties, the information of which was not obtained by the AO. Further, the assessee would have sold shares on behalf of third parties which may have been erroneously considered as sales of the assessee by the AO. In the absence of such information pertaining to third party purchases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted the information from various sources including brokers, BSE through whom the transactions are claimed to have been undertaken by the assessee. The assessee contented that consequent to the relief provided in relation to the profit on account of shares oversold during the second round of litigation, the share trading profit was increased by an amount of ₹ 2,33,14,130/-. Hence, the share market trading profit post considering the addition by the CIT(A) stands at ₹ 12,34,59,337/- instead of ₹ 10,01,45,207/-. The AO subsequently vide her order dated 22.03.2016 (third round of litigation) assessed share market trading profit as assessed in the original assessment order after considering the relief granted by the CIT(A) in the second round of litigation at ₹ 12,34,59.337/-. The assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A). Methodology of computing share market trading profit Illustration for Scrip 'ABS Plastics' is reproduced below: Particulars Quantity Amount (In Rs.) Opening Stock as on 01.04.1991 A 0 0 Add: Purchase from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1992 (Custom information, company information etc.) B 7,800 4,84,450 Less: Sales from 01.04.19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 26 years have passed and this issue has been restored again and again to the file of the authorities below. We, therefore, in the interest of the justice and fair play to both the parties and to end the litigation direct the AO to treat 50% of such profit on share trading belonging to the third party on whose behalf the assessee might have carried out the share trading. Thus the addition is reduced to 50% of ₹ 12,34,59,337/-. Thus the assessee gets a relief of ₹ 6,17,29,668/-. Thus, this ground in assessee's appeal is partly allowed. 38.5. We also find that this issue is fully covered by the decision taken in the case of Late Harshad S Mehta of this order vide para 13.5 above. Ld. Counsel for the assessee as well Ld. Special Counsel & Ld. CIT-DR also not argued because the issue is the same and facts and circumstances are identical. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in the present appeal on this issue, hence, taking a consistent view, we partly confirm the addition. 39. The next issue in regard to Ground No.10 and an addition of ₹ 1,28,62,433/- on account of Dividend and Interest income. For this assessee has raised the following ground: - "10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appeal against deletion. 40.2. We find that the assessee furnished various documents evidencing the said bank deposits of ₹ 15,96,33,663/-. After verifying the said supporting documents, the CIT(A) has granted relief in para no. 33.8 on page No. 77 at his impugned order dated 24.03.2017. Hence, we are of the view that the relief of ₹ 15,96,33,663/- has been granted by the CIT(A) post verification of all the supporting documents / information and examination of the facts involved. We also find that Vide para 33.7 page Nos. 76 to 77 of the impugned appellate order dated 24.03.2017, addition to the extent of ₹ 25 crores is confirmed by the CIT (A), for the following reasons: -that the copy of the confirmations received from Mr. TusharSarda on behalf of the Reliance Group Companies from which short term loan was taken, was a very old copy and therefore much credence could not be given to the same: and -that the fresh confirmations dated 28022017 received from the concerned Reliance Group Companies are neither on the letter head of the company nor have been stamped and hence not satisfying the genuineness." The details of loans of ₹ 25 crores and interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for sale of shares undertaken for clients, refund proceeds on allotment of debentures, refund of margin money, part repayment of loan given and amount received for purchase of shares from clients, the assessee could not explain the amounts properly, hence, sustained. 40.5. In view of the above factual position, we are of the view that the addition to the extent of ₹ 25 crores are to be deleted. Hence, we delete the addition and partly allow this issue of assessee appeal and dismiss this issue of Revenue's appeal. 41. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is regarding deduction on account of interest expenditure & other expenditure and for this assessee has raised the following ground no. 12 &13: - "12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in disallowing the deduction on account of interest expenditure claimed by the Appellant. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to grant deduction in relation of interest expenditure. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in disallowing the claim of other expenses of the Appellant as per the books of account. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shah in spite of requesting for the same time and again. The assessee also filed letters dated 2002.1995. 08.06.2009 and 06.11.2015 requesting AO and CIT(A) to provide copies of the material basis which the addition is made (page Nos. 707,712 and 718 of APB No. 3). The assessee relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Straptex (India) (P) Ltd v Dy. CIT (supra) (filed before the Bench during the course of the hearing) wherein the Tribunal while referring to the search conducted in May 1992 at the residence of Shri. Niranjan Shah has held that the statements given by him could not have been used against the assessee for the following reasons: a) The assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Niranjan Shah. b) Mr. Niranjan Shah had retracted his statement vide his declaration dated 2309.1994 before the Notary Public. 42.3. We find that recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda (Income Tax Appeal No. 197/2012), wherein it was held that as per the principles of natural justice, the AO has to provide the evidence to the assessee and grant opportunity of cross-exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no.23.5 of this order. The assessee contended that: - "a. The Id. CIT(A) has made an error of omission by not considering the relevantledger accounts wherein the corresponding entries are reflected in computing the alleged difference of ₹ 28,14,319/-.Reconciliation of ledger account balances between Jyoti N. Mehta and Harshad S. Mehta is submitted before the Assessing Officer as well as the Id. CIT(A) - Each and every entry is explained by providing one to one correlation b. Addition made by relying on the Id. CIT(A) order dated 24.03.2010 in the case of Shri.Harshad S Mehta for AY 1992-93 although the same is set aside by the Hon'ble Tribunal (order dated 10.11.2014)." 43.3. assessee contended that the CIT(A) has made an error of omission by not considered the relevant ledger accounts wherein the corresponding entries are reflected in computing the alleged difference of ₹ 28,14,319/-/. A chart detailing the ledger account balances showing ledger accounts considered by the AO which calculating the difference is filed before Tribunal (page No. 719 of APB No. 3). The same is reproduced below- Ledger accounts balances in the books of Harshad S. Mehta 1) in the books o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e alleged difference in the books of account. The assessee also submitted transaction by transaction reconciliation of the relevant books of account on page Nos. 731 to 735 of APR No. 3. This difference is mainly on account of a timing difference in recording a few entries in the books of Shri Harshad S. Mehta (on account of cash basis of accounting), etc. which is apparent from page 730 of APB No. 2. The difference has been duly reconciled and is self-explanatory. Further, it is submitted that all the above transactions are undertaken through banking channels and there is no involvement of cash. Further, the entire calculation no discrepancies have been pointed out by the Income-tax Department. 43.6. In view of the above explanation and the fact that the issue is covered in the case of Harshad S Mehta in the above para 23.5 of this order. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in the present appeal on this issue, hence, taking a consistent view, we delete this addition. This issue of assessee's appeal is allowed. 44. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is raised by ground No. 16 regarding Long term capital gain taxed at higher rate as under: - "16. On the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) justified in directing the AO to compute the interest under section 234Cin case of the assessee as per the returned income as against assessed income, despite the fact that no valid return was filed by the assessee for the year under consideration. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the AO not to charge interest u/s 220(2) from the date of original assessment, but only from the date of reassessment in case of assessee without appreciating the fact that demand becomes due from the date of original assessment. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of M/s.Girnar Investment Ltd. WP(C) No.5750/2010 dated 05.01.2012, wherein the Hon'ble Court held that assesse is liable to pay interest u/s 220(2) from the date of original order u/s 143(3) dated 07.10.1997 till the final payment. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering provisions of section 240(a) of IT Act wherein demand does not cease to exist when the order is set- aside by an Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 15,96,02,370/-. Further, the AO held that since the said loss is speculative in nature, it cannot be adjusted against other profits determined under various heads of income. The CIT(A) in para No. 34.17 on page No. 83 of his impugned order has held that the said loss of ₹ 15,96,02,370/- is on account of purchase and sale of shares undertaken by the assessee is not speculative in nature. Accordingly, CIT(A) has directed the AO to adjust the said loss against the share trading profit and other normal business income. We find that CIT(A) in the para No. 34 to 34 19 on page Nos. 77 to 84 of the impugned order dated 24.03.2017 has dealt with the issue. It is thereby observed that the CIT(A) has passed an elaborate and speaking order on the said ground of appeal The conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) is very sound under the law. Further, the Income-tax Department has not provided relevant details, break-up and the evidence along with the basis of preparation of Annexure S-2 to the assessment order. Department has neither been able to rebut the submissions made before the CIT(A) and basis which relief has been granted in the impugned order. Hence, we find no infirmity in the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order on 28.03.2016 purportedly to give effect to the Tribunal's order dated 10.11.2014. 50.2. Before us, it was claimed that after passing the first order on 30.01.2015, the AO became functuous officio. Therefore, the order dated 28.03.2016 is null and void, and without jurisdiction. Reliance is placed upon decision of the Bombay High Cowl in the case of Classic Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 32 taxmann.com 273 (Bombay). The above referred decision was followed by the CIT (A) in the case of DCIT v Heena N. Kanakia (supra). The said order of the CIT (A) has been upheld by the Tribunal for A.Y 2003-04 in ITA No. 3718/Mum/2015 dated 23.09.2015. In light of the above, it is submitted that the assessment order (dated 22.03.2016) may kindly be declared to be null and void. 50.3. We have already taken a view in the case of Late Harshad S Mehta above in this order vide para no.6.5 to 6.8, wherein the assessment on identical facts has been quashed. Hence, respectfully following the same, we quash this assessment also. 51. The next ground of assessee's appeal is as regards to assessment as bad in law and in violation of principles of natural justice. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he grounds stated by him. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and directed him to consider each and every entry of the books of account of the assessee. In the third round of litigation before the Assessing Officer, detailed submissions were made from time to time. 52.2. We find that this issue of rejection of the books of account of the assessee is covered in the case of Late Harshad S Mehta, in this order vide Para No. 8.5 and 8.6. Hence, we are of the view that the AO has rightly rejected the books of account on the same reasoning's and which CIT(A) also confirmed. In view of the above position, we dismiss this ground of assessee's appeal. 53. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to addition of ₹ 56,35,451/- on account of share market speculative profit. For this, assessee has raised following ground No.5:- "5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the ease and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in making all of ₹ 53,35,451/-on account of share market speculative profit. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the addition of ₹ 56,35,451/- on accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following ground Nos. 6, 7 & 8:- "6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in lac the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in making addition of profit on account of sale of shares in shortage based on assumptions and surmises. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the addition of profit on sale of shares in shortage. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the ease, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in computing the profit on sale of shares in shortage without granting credit in respect of missing. stolen, lost, misplaced shares, shares seized by CBI and shares purchased on behalf of related and third parties. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to recompute the profit on sale of shares in shortage after granting appropriate credit. 8. On the facts and ill circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adopting the closing rate as on 31.03.1992 for the purpose of computing the profit on sale of shortage of shares. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to recompute the profit on sale 0T shares in shortage by adopting the mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es less ₹ 137 crores]. The assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A) who Vide impugned order dated 28.02.2017 granted following reliefs to the assessee: "a. Credit of certain unregistered shares disclosed in letter dated 31.01.1995 of Shri Harshad S. Mehta to the Custodian (page Nos. 21 to 54 of impugned order dated 28.02.2017 in the appeal file). b. Credit of shares of Apollo Tyres Limited seized by CBI and lying in the custody of the CBI authorities (page Nos. 55 and 56 of the of impugned order dated 28.02.2017 in the appeal file), and c. Credit on account of mutilated shares of Apollo Tyres Limited (page No. 58 of the of impugned order dated 28.02.2017 in the appeal file)." 54.3. The AO computed the quantities of shares of various companies acquired by the assessee on the basis of Opening Stock, purchases and sale of shares in Annexure S-1. In doing so, he has taken closing stock of shares of last Assessment Year (i.e. AY 1991-92) as opening stock for AY 1992-93. Thereafter, he has gathered the details of purchases and sale of shares effected by the assessee from various sources during the period 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1992 and for the period 01.04.1992 to 08.06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.04 1991 to 31 .03.1992 (Custodian information, Company information, etc.) 9,04,575 14,04,58,074 Add: Trading profit / (Loss) 62,71,236 Closing stock as on 31.03.1992 (Balancing figure - Quantity) 16,77,649 24,88,66,500 Annexure S-3 Stock as on 31 .03.1992 (As per Annexure S-1)(31M] A 16,77,649 42,04,940 Add/ Less: Adjustments (i.e. Purchase and sales for the period 01 .04.1992 to 08.06.1992)[ADJ] B 75,000 33,60,780 Position of stock as on 08.06.1992 [POS] C=A +B 16,02,649 8,44,160 Less: Registered shares [REG] D 1,50,682 6,34,512 Less: Benami Shares (BEN) E 3,47,420 7,62,647 Less: Unregistered shares (UNR) F 1,34,860 2,96,040 No. of shares in shortage (SHT) G= C- DE-F 9,69,688 21,28,631 VAL H= G* Ave rage rate 14,38,45,784 Avearge purchase cost (as per annexure S-1) (in Rs.) AVERAGE RATE 148.34 Sales Consideration (In Rs.) (SQR) I=G *Ma rket rate as on 31.0 3.19 92 42,42,38,285 Profit on sale of shares in shortage (In Rs.) (DIFF) I-H 28,03,92,501 54.4. The assessee, before us contended that the addition on account of profit on sale of shares in shortage is illegal and not sustainable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly undertaken for and on behalf of clients. Thus, the share market badla income is of such clients and does not relate to the assessee. Further, the assessee submits that the addition made by the AO is not in accordance with the books of account. 55.3. We find that this issue is fully covered by the decision taken in the case of Late Harshad S Mehta vide this order only vide para 16.4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee as well the ld. Special Counsel & the ld. CIT-DR also not argued because the issue is the same and facts and circumstances are same. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in the present appeal on this issue, hence, taking a consistent view, we delete the addition confirmed by the CIT(A). The issue of the assessee's appeal is allowed. 56. The next common issue in these cross appeals, of assessee and revenue is as regards to the addition on account of share market oversold position of ₹ 35,51,54,354/-. For this, assessee has raised following ground No. 10: - "10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in making addition on account of share market oversold posit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hares market oversold position of ₹ 49.01 crores as on 31.03.1992 as illustrated through a sample scrip from Annexure S-1 Illustration for Scrip 'Bajaj Electric' is reproduced below: Particulars Quantity Amount (In Rs.) Opening Stock as on 01.04.1991 A 285 2,39,400 Add: Purchase from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1992 (Custom information, company information etc.) B 100 4,600 Less: Sales from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1992 (Custodian information, Company information, etc.) C 605 8,50,900 Stock of Shares oversold (Qty) (C˃(A+B)] D=C-(A+B) 220 Rate per share at which sale is effected E 1406.45 Share market oversold position F=D*E 3,09,418 Thus, it is evident from the above calculation that the Assessing Officer has not considered the purchase cost of such oversold shares. 56.3. The assessee contended that shares were purchased and sold on behalf of clients or third parties, the information of which was not obtained by the AO. Further, the assessee would have sold shares on behalf of third parties which may have been considered as sales of the assessee by the AO. In the absence of such information pertaining to third party purchases/ sales and the basis for co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in making an addition of ₹ 24,62,86,718 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the addition of ₹ 24,62,86,718 as unexplained money." For this revenue also raised the following ground No. 4:- 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the ease and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made to the extent of ₹ 13,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act. 58.1. We noted the facts that as per the original assessment order dated 22.02.1995 an addition of ₹ 24,76,36,718/- was made u/s. 69A of the Act on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account. The CIT(A) during third round deleted the addition to the extent of ₹ 13,50,000/-. The assessee is in appeal before the Bench in relation to the balance amount of addition of ₹ 24,62,86,718/- and revenue is against deletion. 58.2. The facts are that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of ₹ 23.40 crores for the reason that the assessee failed to furnish an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otment of debentures, refund of margin money, part repayment of loan given and amount received for purchase of shares from clients. These transactions are normal business transactions and routed through regular and disclosed bank accounts of the assessee. The assessee contended that CIT (A), in third round of litigation, has granted relief of ₹ 13,50,000/- (included in ₹ 1,05,79,352/-) pertaining to an erroneous entry made by Bank of India (Stock Exchange Branch) which was reversed on the same date by the Bank. However, we noted that the Department is in appeal against the said relief granted. 58.4. As regards to the deposits amounting to ₹ 12,15,981/- made in the bank account of the assessee, it was claimed that these are duly recorded in the books of account and thus cannot be regarded as unexplained deposits and primarily the said deposits pertain to amount received on account of sale of shares undertaken for clients, refund proceeds on allotment of debentures, refund of margin money, part repayment of loan given and amount received for purchase of shares from clients. 58.5. As regards to the addition of ₹ 18,41,385, the addition is made as per Annexur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome u/s 251(2) of the Act. The said addition was made by the CIT(A) on account of difference between the year end balances in the books of account of Shri Ashwin S Mehta and the books of Late Shri Harshad S Mehta. The CIT(A) further in the third round, vide order dated 28.02.2017 upheld the addition. The difference of ₹ 164,60,46,992/- was arrived at by CIT(A) as under: - Particulars Amount (In Rs.) In the books of Shri. Ashwin Mehta M/s Late Shri. Harshad Mehta (A) 17,26,12,668 (Payable) In the Books of M/s. Late Shri. Harshad Mehta Shri. Ashwin Mehta (B) 181,86,59,660 (Receivable) Alleged Difference in balances (B-A) 164,60,46,992 (Receivable) 59.2. The assessee before us narrated in brief as under: - a. The Id. CIT(A) has made error of omission by not considering all the relevant ledger accounts in computing the alleged difference of ₹ 164,60,46,992/-. b. The books of account of Shri Ashwin S Mehta (personal account) and M/s. Ashwin S Mehta (proprietorship concern) needs to be considered on a consolidated basis. c. Reconciliation of Ledger account balances between Ashwin S. Mehta and Harshad S. Mehta is submitted before the Assessing Officer as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paper book, thereby explaining the entire alleged difference in the books of account. It was further claimed that all the above transactions are undertaken through banking channels and there is no involvement of cash. 59.5. The books of account for personal account and proprietorship concern needs to be considered on a consolidated basis. We further noted that in the case of the assessee, the books of account for personal account (Shri. Ashwin S. Mehta) and proprietorship concern (M/s. Ashwin S. Mehta) are maintained separately. The separate books of account are maintained for administrative convenience. However, for income tax purposes, the income earned by Shri Ashwin S. Mehta, on personal account and by the proprietorship concern, would be taxed on a consolidated basis. Accordingly, the consolidated income of Shri Ashwin S. Mehta would be assessed to tax. It was claimed that for income tax purposes Shri. Ashwin S. Mehta and M/s. Ashwin S. Mehta are one and the same. Similarly, in the case of Shri Harshad S. Mehta too, whilst the books of account on personal account (Shri Harshad S Mehta) and for the proprietary concern (M/s. Harshad S Mehta) are maintained separately, the conso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no discrepancies have been found by the AO till date. 59.9. In view of the above explanation and the fact that the issue is covered in the case of Harshad S Mehta in the above para 23.5 of this order, we delete this addition. 60. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is regarding set-off of addition made on account of sources of income against the expenses, investment, application of such source based on telescoping theory and for this, assessee has raised the following ground no. 14:- "14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the plea of the Appellant with respect to set oft of addition made on account of sources of income against the expenses/investment application of such source based on telescoping theory. The Appellant prays that appropriate set off be allowed." 60.1. The assessee urged that in case there are surviving additions on account of unexplained receipts or profit on trading of shares and also additions on account of unexplained investments or unexplained expenditures, then both should be telescoped. It must be treated that unexplained investments or unexplained expenditures have been mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment is made by the Assessing Officer. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the CBDT's Circular No. 334 dated 03.04.1982 wherein it was very clearly held that assessment made originally by the Assessing officer is either varied or even set aside by one Appellate Authority but on further appeal, the original order of the Assessing Officer is restored either in part or wholly, the interest payable under section 220(2) will be computed regarding the due date reckoned from the original demand notice and with reference to the tax finally determined. 61.1. We have already adjudicated the issues of charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 220(2) of the Act vide this order in the case of Late Harshad S Mehta vide paras nos. 29 to 30.10. Here also we direct the AO to follow the order in the case of Harshad S Mehta above and charge interest accordingly. These grounds are decided accordingly. In ITA No. 6120/Mum/2017 62. Now, we shall deal with the appeals of Ashwin S. Mehta for AY 1993-94 in ITA No. 6120/Mum/2017 of assessee's appeal. 63. The first and second ground of assessee's appeal are in regards to assessment a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 475/-. For this, assessee has raised the following ground No.4:- 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not allowing entire relief sought by the Appellant in relation to Share Market trading profit. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the entire addition on account of Share Market trading profit. 65.1. We also find that this issue is fully covered by the decision taken in the case of Late Harshad S Mehta of this order vide para 13.5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee as well Ld. Special Counsel & Ld. CIT-DR also not argued because the issue is the same and facts and circumstances are same. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in the present appeal on this issue, hence, taking a consistent view, we partly confirm the addition. 66. The next common issue in these cross appeals, of assessee and revenue is as regards to the addition on account of share market oversold position of ₹ 3,48,74,591/-. For this, assessee has raised following ground No. 5: - "5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not allowing entire relief sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Appellant. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to allow a deduction of ₹ 19,54,00,000 on account of interest expenditure incurred by the Appellant. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in not allowing deduction on account of various expenses incurred by the Appellant. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to allow deduction of various expenses incurred by the Appellant." 68.1. These two ground Nos. 7&8 relating to deduction on account of Interest, business expenditure, business loss and depreciation& deduction and allowances under chapter VIA of the Act are not pressed and hence dismissed. 69. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) enhancing income on account of relief provided in AY 1992-93 for purchases of subsequent years while computing profit on sale of shortage of shares. For this, assessee has raised the following ground No. 9:- "9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in enhancing income on account of relief provided in AY 1992-93 for purchases of subsequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
