M/S STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD., Bhopal V. THE ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

CO 30/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0508 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Revised return; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 133(6); 139(1); 131; 68; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.114/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ACIT, 1(1) BHOPAL / VS. M/S STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD. 92A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL ( REVENUT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN: AACCS0399D CO NO.30/IND/2016 (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO.114/IND/2018) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD. 92A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL / VS. ACIT, 1(1) BHOPAL ( APPELLANT ) ( RE VENUE ) PAN: AACCS0399D APPELLANT BY SHRI ANIL KHABYA & SUMIT KHABYA CAS RE VENUE BY SMT. ASHIMA GUPTA , CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 22.08.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.09.2019 M/S DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD. IT(SS)ANO.114/IND/2018 & CO NO.NO .28/IND/2019 2 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A .Y. 2009-10 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX(APPEALS)-1, BHOPAL, (IN SHORT CIT(A)), DATED 29.03.2016 WHICH ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 153 R.W.S 143(3) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) FRAMED ON 26.03.2013 BY DCIT-(CENTRAL)-1(2), BHOPAL. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A), WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,85,00,000/- ON GROUND OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS AS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PRODUCE DIRECTORS OF TH E LENDING COMPANIES AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR EXAMINATION OF CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S. 3. IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF S EARCH RELATED TO CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE PROCEEDIN GS INITIATED U/S 153A AND ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED B Y THE AO WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE SAME WERE BAD IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO WERE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 4. BRIEF FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F M/S DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD. IT(SS)ANO.114/IND/2018 & CO NO.NO .28/IND/2019 3 MANUFACTURING OF TRANSFORMERS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS. IT IS PART OF GUPTASONS GROUP OF BHOPAL. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY W AS SUBJECT TO SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT ALONG WITH OTHER GROUP CO NCERN OF GUPTA SONS, CARRIED OUT ON 28.10.2010. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTI CE U/S 153A OF THE ACT DATED 16.01.2012 WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE A SSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ON 03.02.2012 THE ASSESSEE FILED THE INCOME TAX RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.7,97,27,010/-. SAME I NCOME WAS DISCLOSED IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 31.01.2012. ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 18.09.2009 D ECLARING INCOME OF RS.7,98,07,010/-. DURING THE COURSE OF POST SEAR CH INQUIRY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ( IN SHORT LD. AO) CONFRO NTED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINES S OF CASH CREDITORS TOTALLING TO RS.1,85,00,000/-. THE ASSESS EE FURNISHED VARIOUS DETAILS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF CASH CREDITORS. HOWEVER, LD. AO WAS NOT SATISFIED SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE ALLEGED CASH CREDITORS FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE THE LD. AO. ACCORD INGLY, ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS .1,85,00,000/- WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED INCO ME AT RS.9,82,27,010/-. 5. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) AND SUCCEEDED ON MERITS, AS LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDI TION ON OBSERVING THAT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WERE PLACED ON R ECORD AND THE ALLEGED LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REPAID BACK IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. M/S DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD. IT(SS)ANO.114/IND/2018 & CO NO.NO .28/IND/2019 4 6. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE ASSE SSEE HAS RAISED CROSS OBJECTION CONTENDING THAT NO ADDITION WAS CAL LED FOR, AS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELATING TO A.Y. 2009-10 WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 7. AS REGARDS THE CROSS OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON FOLLOWI NG JUDGMENTS, SUBMITTING THAT SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF POST SEARCH INQUIRY WAS UNCALLED FOR:- (I) PCIT VS. MS. LATA JAIN 384 ITR 543 (DELHI) (II) PCIT VS. SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. 387 ITR 529 ( GUJ) (III) CIT VS. GURINDER SINGH BAWA 386 ITR 483 (BOM) (IV) M/S ANANT STEEL PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 5(1), BHOPAL IT( SS)A NOS. 28 TO 31/IND/2010 TRIBUNAL (INDORE) 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE (DR) OBJECTED TO THE CONTENTION MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT W AS CARRIED OUT ON 28.10.2010. ORIGINAL RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT F OR A.Y. 2009-10 WAS FILED ON 18.09.2009 AND FURTHER REVISED IT ON 3 1.01.2012 AND RETURN IN INCOMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE AC T WAS FILED ON 03.02.2012. SINCE THE REVISED RETURN HAS BEEN FURNI SHED AFTER THE M/S DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD. IT(SS)ANO.114/IND/2018 & CO NO.NO .28/IND/2019 5 DATE OF SEARCH, A.Y. 2009-10 CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED UNDER THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT RE FERRED AND RELIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPO RT OF NON-ABATED ASSESSMENT ORDERS CANNOT STAND FOR. IN OUR VIEW SI NCE THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF REVISED THE RETURN AFTER THE DATE OF SE ARCH, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED UNDER THE COMPLE TED ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, LD. AO WAS WELL WITHIN HIS P OWERS AND JURISDICTION U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT TO C ONDUCT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH POST SEARCH INQUI RY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUN D FOR A.Y.2009-10. WE ACCORDINGLY, DISMISS THE ASSESSEES GROUND RAISED IN CROSS OBJECTION. 10. AS REGARDS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE CH ALLENGING THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,85,00,000/-. LD. DR V EHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF LD. AO. 11. PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE S.K. BOTHRA & SONS VS. I TO 347 ITR 347 (CAL) & ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF C ALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF CRYSTAL NET WORKS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 353 ITR 171 (CAL). 12. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. DURING A.Y. 2009-10 THE ASSESSEE TOOK UN SECURED LOAN OF RS.1,85,00,000/- FROM M/S NIKUNJ ALLOY & STEEL PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE FILED VARIOUS DETAILS TO EXPLAIN THE CASH CREDIT AND ALSO REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE THE SUMMON S U/S 131 OF M/S DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD. IT(SS)ANO.114/IND/2018 & CO NO.NO .28/IND/2019 6 THE ACT OR TO CALL INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF THE AC T. BUT THE SAME WERE NOT ISSUED/SERVED BY THE LD. AO FOR THE REASON BEST KNOWN TO HIM. LD. AO PUT THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE CASH CREDITORS WHICH WAS NOT FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH RESULTED IN THE ADDITION. 13. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A DETAILED FI NDING OF FACT ALONG WITH ENUMERATING VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OBSE RVING AS FOLLOWS:- 5.2 GROUNDS NO.1, 2 AND 3 ARE BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHE R. FROM THE FACTS MENTIONED BY THE A.O IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS QUOTED ABOVE, IT CAN BE GATHERED THAT THE APPELLANT PRODUCED ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS INCLUDING PAN NO., CONFIRMATIO N, COPIES OF TAX RETURNS OF THE PERSONS WHO PROVIDED LOAN AND COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS ETC. ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS PROVIN G THE BONAFIDES OF THE UNSECURED LOANS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE A.O ALSO HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O HAS MADE ADDIT IONS OF RS. 1,85,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDITS FROM M/S NIKUNJ ALLOY AND STEEL PVT. LTD. FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THE APPELL ANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE CREDITORS FOR EXAMINATION BY THE A.O. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN S FROM M/S RUDRA STEEL AND ALLOYS FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 60,00,000/- DURING THE PRECEDING A.Y. 2008-09 ARE ALSO FOUND TO HAVE BEEN A CTUALLY RECEIVED DURING THIS A. Y 2009-10 UNDER APPEAL. 6. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CATEGORI CALLY EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS FOR THE REASONS THAT HE HAD NO CONTROL OVER THEM AND HAD REQUESTED THE A.O T O ISSUE SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE IT. ACT OR ENQUIRY LETTERS U/S 133(6) OF THE L T. ACT. THE A.O FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM CHOSE NOT TO ISSUE THE AFORESAID NOTICES AND ALSO DID NOT CONDUCT AN Y OTHER ENQUIRY. THE A.O HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE AGAINS T THE APPELLANT TO PROVE HIS CASE THAT THE CASH CREDITS UNSECURED L OANS OF RS. L M/S DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD. IT(SS)ANO.114/IND/2018 & CO NO.NO .28/IND/2019 7 ,85,00,000/- PLUS RS. 60,00,000/- FROM BOTH THE PARTIES WERE NOT GENUINE. 7. I HAVE VERIFIED THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE AP PELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOTICE SEVERAL FACTORS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AS BELOW: I. UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 1,85,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDITS FROM M/S NIKUNJ ALLOY AND STEEL PVT. LTD. WAS RECEIV ED IN TWO INSTALLMENTS BY CHEQUE. RS.75,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED ON 25.04.2008 AND RS. 1,10,00 000/- WAS RECEIVED ON 02.05.2008. II. INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,36,534/- ON THE UN SECURED LOAN OF RS. 1,85,00,000/- TAKEN FROM /IS NIKUNJ ALLOY AND ST EEL PVT. LTD. WAS CREDITED AND DEDUCTION OF TDS OF RS. 3,48,179/- WAS MADE. III. INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,95,801/- ON THE UN SECURED LOAN OF RS. 78,00,000/- TAKEN FROM M/S RUDRA STEEL AND ALLOYS /- WAS CREDITED AND DEDUCTION OF TDS OF RS. 1,57,668/- WAS M ADE. IV. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 1,85 ,00,000/- TO M/S NIKUNJ ALLOY AND STEEL PVT. LTD. WAS FINALLY RETURNED ON 08.04.2010 AND ON 15.04.2010 FOR THE AMOUNTS OF RS. 1,25,00,00 0/- AND RS. 60,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY BY WAY OF CHEQUE NO. 68385 9 AND 683883/RTGS. V. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 78,0 0,000/- TO /IS RUDRA STEEL AND ALLOYSL- WAS FINALLY RETURNED ON 12.0 4.2010 ALONGWITH OTHER LOANS PAYABLE BY WAY OF CHEQUE NO. 683866/RTGS. VI. COPIES OF THE BALANCE SHEETS, TAX RETURNS OF TH E LENDERS WERE FILED BEFORE THE A.O. AND THE A.O HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE SAME. VII COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE LENDERS WER E ALSO FILED BEFORE THE A.O AND THE A.O HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANYTHI NG WRONG WITH THE SAME . VIII. COPY OF THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE ACCOUNT BY T HE LENDERS WERE ALSO FILED. 8. HAVING GONE THROUGH ALL THESE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MATTER, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE A.O WA S NOT JUSTIFIED TO MAKE ADDITIONS U/S 68 OF THE LT. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS FROM THE AFORESAID LENDER FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. FIRSTLY IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UN DER CONSIDERATION IS AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ W ITH SECTION 153(A). THE DEPARTMENT HAVING SUBJECTED THE APPELLANT TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S L32 OF THE ACT HAS ADMITTEDLY NOT BEEN ABLE M/S DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD. IT(SS)ANO.114/IND/2018 & CO NO.NO .28/IND/2019 8 TO SEIZE/PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTS WHICH MIGHT HAVE MADE THE AFORESAID UNSECURED LOAN SUSPECT. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF AUTHORITIES/CASE LAWS ON THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/ S 153A WHERE IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE SCOPE OF ASSESSME NTS IN THE SEARCH MATTERS WHERE THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT ABATE D IS RESTRICTED TO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH. 9. SECONDLY, IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT ALL THE SUP PORTING DOCUMENTS SUBSTANTIATING THE BONAFIDES OF THE LOAN WE RE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, YET THE A. A MADE THE ADDITIONS MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT THE A PPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THE LENDERS. THIS INSPITE OF CLEAR AN D CATEGORICAL REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE PROCE SS U/S L31/133(6) OF THE ACT. THE A.O HAS GIVEN NO REASON AS TO WHY HE HAS NOT ISSUED THE RELEVANT NOTI CES IF HE HAD SUSPECTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS. AS A CONSEQUENCE NOTHING INCRIMINATING HAS ALSO BEEN BRO UGHT ON RECORD BY THE A.O JUSTIFYING THE ADDITION MADE ON T HIS ISSUE. 10. THIRDLY, THE APPELLANT HAS PAID INTEREST ON THE LOAN AND HAS DEDUCTED TDS ON THE SAME WHICH WAS PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. THE A .O HAS SUSPECTED AND ADDED HE UNSECURED LOAN BUT HAS ALLOWED TH E INTEREST PAYMENT TO THE APPELLANT. IT IS A FACT THA T INTEREST HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE LENDERS AND A.O HAS NOT MADE ANY A DDITION ON THE SAME. THIS ACTION OF THE A.O IS CONTRADICTORY AND MAKES THE ADDITION UNSUSTAINABLE. 11. FOURTHLY, IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTICED THAT ALL THE LOANS WHICH WERE ADDED BY THE A.O ROOD REPAID IN APRIL 2010. THE A.O PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN APPEAL IN MARCH - 013. THE A.O SHOULD HAVE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE FAC T THAT THE LOAN SUSPECTED BY HIM AS BOGUS CASH CREDIT STOOD REPA ID. THE FACT THAT LOAN WAS REPAID BY CHEQUE/RTGS STRENGTHENS THE C ORRECTNESS OF THE APPELLANTS CLAIM. 12. AS FAR AS LOAN OF RS. 60,00,000/. FROM M/S RUDRA STEEL AND ALLOYS PVT. LTD. IS CONCERNED, THE SAME WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. TH E PARTICULARS FOR THIS LOAN TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT SHOWS THAT THE LOAN WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED ON 07.04.2008. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF M/S. RUDRA STEEL AND ALLOYS PVT. LTD. HAS THEREFORE BEEN ERRONEO USLY MADE IN THE A.Y. 2008-09 FOR RS.60,00,000/- INSTEAD OF A.Y. 2009-10. THIS AMOUNT OF RS.60,00,000/- IS BEING DEALT WITH HERE. 13. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTS OF THE MATTE R, THE ADDITION M/S DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD. IT(SS)ANO.114/IND/2018 & CO NO.NO .28/IND/2019 9 MADE BY THE AO OF RS.1,85,00,000/- PLUS RS.60,00,00 0/- (MADE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 BUT ACTUALLY PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2009-10) ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT AR E DELETED IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND LAW AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 14. FROM GOING THROUGH ABOVE FINDING OF FACT BY LD. CIT(A) WHICH GOES UNCONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR, PER SE THE DOCUMENTS AND FACTS REFERRED THEREIN WE OBSERVE THAT THE ALLEGED UNSECU RED LOAN FROM M/S NIKUNJ ALLOY & STEEL PVT. LTD. WAS RECEIVED THR OUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, INTEREST PAID AFTER DEDUCTING TDS, FI NANCIAL STATEMENT, INCOME TAX RETURN, BANK STATEMENT AND CO NFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT WERE ALSO FILED. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ALLE GED LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.1,85,00,000/- WAS REPAID IN APRIL 2010 WHICH FUR THER ADDS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN. LD. AO HAS NOT D OUBTED ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ONLY REASON FOR WHICH HE MADE ADDITION WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODU CE THE CASH CREDITORS BEFORE HIM. 15. HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S.K. BOTHRA & SONS VS. ITO (SUPRA) WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF GE NUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS OF LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, HELD TH AT THE INITIAL ONUS IS ALWAYS UPON THE ASSESSEE AND IF THE SAME IS DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE BY PRODUCING SUFFICIENT MATERIAL IN SU PPORT OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION, THE ONUS SHIFTS TO THE AO AND AFTER VE RIFICATION, HE CAN CALL FOR FURTHER EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. M/S DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD. IT(SS)ANO.114/IND/2018 & CO NO.NO .28/IND/2019 10 16. EXAMINING THE FACT OF THE INSTANT CASE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED ITS I NITIAL ONUS BY FILING NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO PROVE IDENTITY, GENUI NENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN AT RS.1,85 CRORE S AND FURTHER THE LOAN WAS ALSO STANDS REPAID. BUT THE LD. AO MADE TH E ADDITION ONLY FOR NOT PRODUCING THE CASH CREDITORS. 17. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW MERELY FOR NOT PRODUCING THE CASH CREDITORS BEFORE THE LD. AO EVEN WHEN ALL THE NECES SARY DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDITORS ARE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE , CANNOT BE A REASONABLE BASIS TO MAKE ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED C ASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INT ERFERE IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMI SS THE REVENUES APPEAL. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND ASSES SEES CROSS OBJECTION FOR A.Y. 2009-10 STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 .09. 2019. SD/- (KUL BHARAT) SD/- (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 13/09/2019 CTX? P.S/. . . M/S DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD. IT(SS)ANO.114/IND/2018 & CO NO.NO .28/IND/2019 11 COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUAR D FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR