Shri Sanjay Lunawat, Indore V. The ACIT, 4(1), Indore

CO 32/Ind/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5358 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2020
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJIB JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: S N AGRAWAL; BHAVESH AGRAWAL CAS
• Keywords: Capital asset converted into stock in trade; Source of fund; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 40(a)(ia); 143(1); 201; 113; 43; 48; 72; 13; 22; 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING ITA NO.396/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ACIT-4(1), INDORE : APPELLANT V/S SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE : RESPONDENT PAN AAKPL 1062 B C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.396/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE PAN AAKPL 1062 B : APPELLANT V/S ACIT-4(1), INDORE : RESPONDENT REVENUE BY SHRI RAJIB JAIN , CIT - DR ASSESSEE BY S/ SHRI S.N. AGRAWAL & BHAVESH AGRAWAL, CAS DATE OF HEARING 07 .0 7 .2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 3 .0 9 .202 1 SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 2 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL & CROSS-OBJECTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II (IN SHORT LD. CIT(A)], I NDORE DATED 15.1.2018 WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 14 3(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 22.03 .2013 FRAMED BY JCIT, RANGE-3, INDORE. 2. REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A):- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 85.00,000/- AND RS. 1,07.50,000/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT O N ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND AS SHOWN BY THE ASSE SSEE. DESPITE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OR TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS GIVING ADVANCES. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR THE CASE, LD. CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 1,59.30.060/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LO AN FROM VARIOUS PERSONS, EVEN THOUGH THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS WAS NOT PROVED. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, , LD. CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF R S. 10,18.500/- ON ACCOUNT OR DISALLOWANCES OR INTEREST ON PROPERTY CL AIMED BY THE SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 3 ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT SIMILAR CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 4, WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR THE CASE, LD. CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 9,15.600/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OR CLAIMED OF INTEREST OUT OF INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES. BY HOLDING THAT SIMILAR CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR THE CASE LD. CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSE E WAS HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND, HE SHOULD HAVE AGRICULTURAL INC OME EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCES REGARDING AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. 6. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT EVEN THOUGH THE FIRST PROVISO OF SECTION 201( 1) OF THE IT ACT WAS INSERTED W.E.F. 01/07/2012 WHEREAS THE RELEVANT A. Y. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS A. Y. 2010-11 AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE CERTIFICATE FROM C.A IN PRESCRIBED PRO FORMA AS ENVISAGED IN PROVISION TO SEC 201 (I) OF THE ACT. 3. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN CRO SS OBJECTION: C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN MAINTAINING ADDITION O N ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT AS ADVANCED TO SHRI TARUN DASSANI AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE AMOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 5,00,000/- AS AGAINST AGRICULTURAL IN COME OF RS. 8,14,000/- AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETUR N OF TOTAL INCOME. SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 4 DEPARTMENTAL ITA NO.396/IND/2018 - A.Y. 2010-11 4. FIRST GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITIONS OF RS. 85,00,000/- AND RS 1,07,51,000/- AS RECEIVED FROM SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL AND M/S ROYAL TOW NSHIP [ PROP CONCERN OF SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL] AS ADVANCE AGAINST THE SALE OF LAND. FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF REVENU E AUTHORITIES ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDING FILED CONFIRMATION WITH PAN OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM ADVA NCES WERE RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF LAND. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT LAND WAS SOLD AND ALSO REGIS TERED IN THE NAME OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT MERE FI LING OF CONFIRMATION AND PROVIDING OF PAN IS NOT SUFFICIENT AS TO JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE AMOUNT AS RECEIVED IN THE FORM O F ADVANCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOU NCEMENTS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ADDED RS. 85,00,000/- AND RS 1 ,07,51,000/- U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 5 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACT ION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT AND AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS/CIRC UMSTANCES, MATERIAL AND SUBMISSIONS THEREOF DELETED THE ADDITI ON. THE OPERATIVE PART/FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: .......... THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING FILED CO PY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER AS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER, COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND COPY OF REGISTRY IN RESPECT OF LAND A CTUALLY SOLD AND REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL. THES E PAPERS WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT RE-ITERATED THE SAME FACTS AS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE O F HEARING FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ADVANCES A S RECEIVED BY HIM AGAINST THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND THROUGH C HEQUES AND ALSO IN CASH, DETAILS OF LANDSOLD TO SHRI RAKESH AG RAWAL INCLUDING THE REGISTRY AS PROVIDED WHICH WAS ALSO MADE AVAILA BLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER MENTIONING THE DETAILS OF CHEQUES AS ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CASH WHICH WAS ADJUSTED IN THESE TWO REGISTRY. THE APPELLANT H AS PROVIDED THE PA NO, CONFIRMATION AND AFFIDAVIT. IN ADDITION TO THAT, COPY OF THE REGISTRY AS EXECUTED WAS ALSO PROVIDED PROVING NOT ONLY THE IDENTITY BUT THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AS EXE CUTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE AMOUNT AS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AS ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF LAND WAS THUS PROVED BY THE APPELLA NT. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE S AME AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. I HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 85,00,000/- AND RS 1,07,50,000/- TOT ALING TO RS 1,92,50,000/- MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPEL LANT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 6. LD. CIT-DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT MERE FILING OF CONFIRMATION AND PROV IDING OF PAN IS SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 6 NOT SUFFICIENT AS TO JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE AMOUNT, THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITIONS. ON TH E OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITERATING THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE BEFORE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, RELIED UPON THE ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SAL ES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS ALSO VERIFIABLE FROM THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN T REATING THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HIS I NCOME BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING T O HIM TO SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL IN LIEU OF CONSIDERATION WHICH INCLU DED THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE SAID PARTY. FURTHER, L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNC EMENT/SYNOPSIS OF ARGUMENTS AS DETAILED IN THE PAPER BOOKS FILED B EFORE US AND SUBMITTED THAT THE VIEW DRAWN IN THESE JUDICIAL PRO NOUNCEMENTS SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND PERUSED MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FI LED COPY OF SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 7 CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS AND AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAKE SH AGRAWAL WHEREIN HE CATEGORICALLY ACCEPTED THAT HE HAD ADVAN CED RS. 85,00,000/- AND RS. 1,07,51,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE A S ADVANCE AGAINST PURCHASE OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED C OPY OF SALE REGISTRIES EXECUTED SUBSEQUENTLY WHEREIN SUBSTANTIA L AMOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED. T HE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON THESE DOCUMENTS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED REMAND REPORT DATED 05- 04-2017 WHICH IS FILED ON PAGE NOS. 187-193 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DID NOT COMMENT ON ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS RATHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY REITERATED THE FINDINGS OF THE THEN ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AMPLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO WIT H HIM. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS R IGHT IN RECORDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND IDENTITY AS WELL AS CREDITWORTH INESS OF THE SAID SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 8 PARTY. BEFORE US TOO, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE FILED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A): S. NO DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS PAGE NO. OF PAPER BOOK 1 COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS OF SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL WHEREIN HE DULY CONFIRMED THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES OF RS. 85,00, 000/- AND 1,07,51,000/- GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE 59-60 2 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL ON OATH WHEREIN HE AGAIN CONFIRMED THAT HE GAVE ADVANCES OF RS. 85,00,000/- AND RS. 1,07,51,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF A GRICULTURAL LAND 61-62 3.1 COPY OF REGISTRY AS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A CONSIDE RATION OF RS. 1,50,79,000/- 63-69 3.2 COPY OF REGISTRY AS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A CONSIDE RATION OF RS. 63,94,000/- 70-76 3.3 COPY OF REGISTRY AS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A CONSIDE RATION OF RS. 3,46,27,000/- 77-84 3.4 COPY OF REGISTRY AS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A CONSIDE RATION OF RS. 3,59,00,000/- 85-92 FURTHER, THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS ADVA NCE AND SUBSEQUENTLY ADJUSTED AGAINST SALES MADE TO SHRI RA KESH AGRAWAL WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE US AS FOLLOWS: SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 9 S. NO PARTICULARS AMOUNT OF ADVANCE ADJUSTED [IN RS.] RELEVANT PAGE NO. 1 REGISTRY AS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,50,79,000/- 85,00,000 65 TOTAL 85,00,000 2.1 REGISTRY AS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,50,79,000/- 45,79,000 65 2.2 REGISTRY AS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 63,94,000/- 8,94,000 72 2.3 REGISTRY AS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 3,46,27,000/- 29,27,000 79 2.4 REGISTRY AS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 3,59,00,000/- 23,51,000 87 TOTAL 1,07,51,000 FROM PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT AMOUNT OF ADVANCES OF RS. 85,00,000/- AND RS. 1,07,51,000/- RECEIVED F ROM SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ADJUSTED AGAINST S ALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND MADE TO SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL AND T HE ENTIRE PARTICULARS OF THESE ADVANCES WERE DULY MENTIONED I N THE SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 10 REGISTERED SALE DEEDS AS WELL. THUS, THERE WAS NO J USTIFICATION FOR ADDING THE AMOUNT OF THESE ADVANCES TO THE TOTA L INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. SO FAR AS THE CASE-LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE CONCER NED, WE FIND THAT THESE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE P RESENT CASE SINCE THE SAME DEAL WITH RECEIVING OF UNSECURED LOA N BY AN ASSESSEE AND IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO UNSECURED LOAN WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL R ATHER THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF LAND FROM SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ADJUSTED AGAI NST SALES MADE TO SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL AND THIS FACT WAS DULY VERIFIABLE FROM THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS EXECUTED SUBSEQUENTLY. IT IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN RE SPECT OF ADVANCES (CASH CREDITS) FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE SUBSEQUENTLY ADJUSTED AGAINST SA LES. IT IS ALSO A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT NO ADDI TION IS SUSTAINABLE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED WHICH ST ANDS DULY RECONCILED AGAINST DIFFERENT SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO DOUBT THE GE NUINENESS SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 11 OR CORRECTNESS OF REGISTERED SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. OUR VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: 8. HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MOHD. SAHID AS REPORTED IN [2018] 402 ITR 110 (ALLAHABAD) HELD AS UNDER: 12. THEN AS TO QUESTION NO. 2, WE FIND THAT THERE I S NOTHING TO DOUBT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE FINDING OF THE TRIB UNAL THAT UPON TWO REMAND REPORTS, THE ENTIRE CASH CREDIT ENT RY OF RS. 37,10,000/- CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDIT ION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, STOOD RECONCILED AGAINST DIFFERENT SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS HAD BEEN EXECUTED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND THE CASH CREDIT ENTRIES FOUND STANDING IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RE LEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 HAD BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SAME, THERE REMAINED NO FURTHER DOUBT A S TO THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS WHO DEPOSITED THE MONEY WITH THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE FACT THAT SUCH PERSON DID NOT REC EIVE THE LETTER OR DID NOT APPEAR IN PERSON DURING THE INQUI RY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE GETS OVERSHADOWED AND LOOSES ITS RELEVANCE IN ABSEN CE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OR CORRECTNES S OF REGISTERED SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. EVEN IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT OF RS. 8,00,000/- THE SECOND REMAND REPORT AS EXTRACTED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) CLE ARLY MENTIONED THAT AASHIQ ALI SIDDIQUI HAD GOT THE SALE DEED EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR WHEREIN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8,00,000/- HAD BEEN ADJUSTED. THUS, THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE IS ALSO A CONCLUDED FINDING OF FACT RECORDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE ON R ECORD AND WARRANTS NO INTERFERENCE. QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 12 9. HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF PR . CIT V. MONTAGE ENTERPRISES (P.) LTD. AS REPORTED IN [2018] 100 TAXMANN.COM 100 (SC) DISMISSED THE SLP FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT V. MONTAGE ENTERP RISES (P.) LTD. AS REPORTED IN [2018] 100 TAXMANN.COM 99 (DELHI) APPRO VED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND HONBLE ITAT WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT: 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS THREE MANUFACTURING UNITS, I.E . MALANPUR, JAMMU AND NOIDA. THE ORIGINAL INCOME DECL ARED WAS 'NIL' FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. A SEAR CH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN RESPECT OF M/S. FLEX GROUP OF COMPANIES ON 23.02.2006, WHICH LED TO THE NOTICE BEING ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SUM OF RS.2.32 CROR ES, WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIM TOWARDS TRADE CREDIT. THE CIT(APPEAL) DIRECTED DELETION OF THIS AMOUNT AFTER DUE VERIFICATIONS OF THE RECORD BY EXPRESSING HIS SATIS FACTION THAT THE CREDITS CLAIMED WERE GENUINE AND IN ACCORD WITH THE DOCUMENTS AND THE RECORDS PRODUCED BY THE ASSES SEE. THE CIT'S FINDINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS : '10.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE A.O. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FILE THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE TRADE CUSTOMERS FROM WHOM THE ADVANCE AGAINST SALE IS RECEIVED IN THIS YEAR AND IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATIONS, THE A.O. TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,32,13,640/- AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IT IS OBSERV ED FROM THE DETAILS FILED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THE LED GER ACCOUNTS OF THE CONCERNED PARTIES WERE FILED BEFORE THE A.O. AS WELL AS DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE TRADE CUSTOMERS AS APPEARING IN THE LIST ARE TH E REGULAR CUSTOMERS MAKING PURCHASES FROM THE SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 13 APPELLANT FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS. A PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID PARTIES FOR THE CURRENT AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT YEAR SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUPPLIED THE GOODS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF THE BUSINESS. THE REALIZATION OF PROCEEDS THEREOF IS AN ONGOING BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE ONLY FINDING OF THE A.O. IS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM FEW OF THE PARTIES. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE SUBMISSIONS THAT T HE GOODS HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED UNDER VARIOUS INVOICES AND THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES FROM TIME TO TIME. IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS HELD THA T THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED THE ADVANCES ARE THE REGULAR CUSTOMERS OF THE APPELLANT IN THE PRECEDING AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE TRADE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SALES MADE TO THEM IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. FEW OF THE CUSTOMERS FROM WHOM SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF ADVANCE IS RECEIVED ARE LIMITED COMPANIES. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. T HAT THE ADVANCE IS OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS FOR THE LAS T MANY YEARS. THE ADVANCE IS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SALE IN THE IMMEDIATE NEXT YEAR. AS SUCH, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O OF RS.2,32,13,640/- IS DELETED.' 6. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT) AFFIRME D THE ABOVE FINDING. THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE QUESTION URGED IS PURELY FACTUAL. SINCE THE FINDINGS RECORDE D BY THE CIT(A) AND THE ITAT ARE CONCURRENT, THEY REFLECTED THAT THE TRADE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT WERE ADJUS TED AGAINST THE SALES MADE TO THEM IN THE SUBSEQUENT YE ARS. AS SUCH, NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 10. THE RATIO LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRON OUNCEMENTS ALSO SUPPORTS THE ABOVE VIEW DRAWN BY US: A) PR. CIT, DURGAPUR V. DUTTA AUTOMOBILES (P.) LTD. AS REPORTED IN [2016] 287 CTR 684 (CAL); B) AYUSHI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR AS REPORTED IN [2014] 50 TAXMANN.COM 396 (JODHPUR - TRIB.); SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 14 C) ACIT V. TITAN ENGINEERS AS REPORTED IN [2011] 15 TAXMANN.COM 340 (ITAT-BANGALORE); 11. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSS ION THEREOF IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS (SUPRA), WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 85,00,000/- AND RS. 1,07,51,00 0/- AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIVE D AGAINST SALE OF LAND BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WERE UNJUSTIFIABLE SINCE THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS ALSO VERIFIABLE FROM THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUS TIFIED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS H IS INCOME AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO HIM TO SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL IN LIEU OF CONSIDERATION WHICH INCLUDED THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE SAID PARTY. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 85,00,000/- AND RS. 1,07,51,00 0/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE L D CIT(A). WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 15 12. SECOND GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS WITH REG ARD TO DELETION OF THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 1,59,30,060/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN FROM VARIOU S PERSONS. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, RECEIVED UNSECURED LO ANS FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: S. NO NAME OF THE PARTY PAN AMOUNT [IN RS.] 1 ANJANA BHACHAWAT ARQPB6739A 5,00,000 2 MANISHA MORYA AITPM2857J 18,00,000 3 DEEPAK JAIN ABBPJ7325B 31,00,000 4 SHREE MANGAL MURTEE TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED AALCS7463B 18,60,060 5 VIJIT RAMAVAT ADUPR0676G 25,00,000 6 THE IESM ACADEMY AAEFT4206F 32,00,000 7 JAIN INFRATECH [PROP. DEEPAK JAIN] ABBPJ7325B 29,70,000 TOTAL 1,59,30,060 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD FURNIS H ONLY THE COPY OF LEDGER EXTRACT AND CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM UNSECURED LOANS WERE TAKEN DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 16 FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR WITH CORROBORATIV E EVIDENCES. 13. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE AC TION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT AND AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS/CIRC UMSTANCES, MATERIAL AND SUBMISSIONS THEREOF DELETED THE ADDITI ON. THE OPERATIVE PART/FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: THE APPELLANT FURTHER CLAIMED THAT AS AGAINST FRESH ADDITION OF RS 79,00,000/-, AN AMOUNT OF RS 1,59,30,060/- WAS ADDE D TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IN ANY CASE WAS NOT J USTIFIED. THE AMOUNT AS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DEALT I N DETAIL HEREUNDER:- 4.4.1] SMT ANJANA BHACHAWAT OF RS 5,00,000/- THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED LOAN OF RS 5,00,000/- FR OM SMT ANJANA BHACHAWAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN G. COPY OF HER LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT WAS FI LED. THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY S TATING THAT PA NO AND ADDRESS OF THE LOAN CREDITOR WAS NOT PROVIDED. THE APPELLANT HAS PROVIDED COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER, PAN NO AN D ALSO BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. THE DOCUMENTS AS FIL ED BY THE APPELLANT WERE REFERRED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R HIS COMMENTS BUT NOTHING NEW WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER, COPY OF LEDGER OF THE LOAN CRE DITOR IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS ALSO FILED COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LOAN CREDITOR WHEREIN THE AMOUNT AS ADVANCED TO THE APPELLANT WAS DULY REFLECTED. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LO AN CREDITOR, IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT NO CASH WAS DEPOSITED PRIOR TO ISSU ANCE OF THE CHEQUES TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE D ISCHARGED THE ONUS LYING ON HIM AND NO CONTRARY FINDING WAS GIVEN BY THE SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 17 ASSESSING OFFICER ON THESE DOCUMENTS EVEN IN REMAND PROCEEDING. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE T HE ADDITION OF RS 5,00,000/- AS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPEL LANT. 4.4.2] SMT MANISHA MAURYA OF RS 18,00,000/-. THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED LOAN OF RS 18,00,000/- F ROM SMT MANISHA MAURYA DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDING.COPY OF HER LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT WAS FILED. THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLA NT BY STATING THAT PA NO AND ADDRESS OF THE LOAN CREDITOR WAS NOT PROVIDED. THE APPELLANT HAS PROVIDED COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER, PA NO AND HIS BANK ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE AMOUNT AS RECEIVED WAS DUL Y CREDITED. THE DOCUMENTS AS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WERE REFERR ED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS BUT NOTHING NEW WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM. THE APPELLANT FILED COPY OF CONFIRMATION LE TTER, COPY OF LEDGER OF THE LOAN CREDITOR IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AL SO FILED HIS BANK ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE AMOUNT AS RECEIVED BY HIM WAS R EFLECTED. THE APPELLANT BY FILING THE CONFIRMATION AND PA NO DISC HARGED ONUS LYING ON HIM AND NO CONTRARY FINDING WAS GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ON THESE DOCUMENTS EVEN IN REMAND PROCEEDING. I, THERE FORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 18,0 0,000/- AS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 4.4.3] SHRI DEEPAK JAIN OF RS 31,00,000/- THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED LOAN OF RS 31,00,000/- F ROM SHRI DEEPAK JAIN.DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, TH E CONFIRMATION LETTER WAS FILED. THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY STATING THAT ONLY CONFIRMATION LETTER WAS FILED BUT PAN NO OF THE LOAN CREDITOR WAS NOT PROVIDED. THE APPEL LANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING FILED COPY OF CONFIR MATION LETTER, PAN NO, COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOK OF LOAN CREDITOR, COPY OF STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF SHRI DEEPAK JAIN WHEREIN THE AMOUNT AS ADVANCED TO THE APPELLANT WAS PROPERLY REFLECTED AN D COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF LOAN CREDITOR. THE DOCUMENTS AS F ILED BY THE APPELLANT WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OR HIS COMMENTS BUT NOTHING NEW WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM. THE APPELLANT FILED COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER, PAN NO, COPY OF ACCOUNT OF TH E APPELLANT IN HIS BOOKS, COPY OF STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AND ALSO FILED COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LOAN CREDITOR WHEREIN THE AMOUNT AS ADVANCED TO THE APPELLANT WAS DULY REFLECTED. I FIND THAT THE APPEL LANT BY FILING AMPLE DOCUMENTS HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS LYING ON HIM AND NO CONTRARY FINDINGS WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SE DOCUMENTS EVEN IN REMAND PROCEEDING. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 18 TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,00,000/- AS MADE T O THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 4.4.4] M/S SHREE MANGAL MURTI TRADEX P LIMITED OF R S 18,60,060/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDING ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 18,60,060/- TO THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE APPELLANT BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 O F THE ACT BY STATING THAT ONLY COPY OF LEDGER WAS FILED WITHOUT PAN NO A ND ADDRESS. THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING FILED COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOK OF SHRI MANGAL MURTI TRADEX P LIMITED AND CONTRA ACCOUNT IN THE BOOK OF THE APPEL LANT, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF M/S SHRI MANGAL MURTI TRADEX P LI MITED WITH BANK OF BARODA, COPY OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND A UDITED FINAL ACCOUNT. THE DOCUMENTS AS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WE RE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT IN THE REMAND REPORT NOTH ING NEW WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM. ON PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOK OF THAT COMPANY IT IS CLEARLY EVIDENT T HAT AN AMOUNT OF RS 21,05,056/- WAS RECEIVED AT THE BEGINNING BY THE AP PELLANT BUT AT THE END AN AMOUNT OF RS 56,86,839/- WAS DUE TO THEA PPELLANT . THE AMOUNT AS DUE FROM M/S SHRI MANGAL MURTEE TRADEX P LIMITED WAS SHOWN AS LOANS & ADVANCES IN THE BOOK OF THE APPELL ANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED TWO CHEQUES AS RECEIVED FRO M THIS COMPANY BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT FROM THE AMPLE DOCUMENTS AS FILED HAS DULY DISCHARGED TH E ONUS LYING ON IT. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING AN AMOUNT OF RS 18,60,060/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E APPELLANT. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE T HE ADDITION OF RS 18,60,060/- MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLA NT. 4.4.5] SHRI VIJAY RAMAWAT OF RS 25,00,000/- THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED LOAN OF RS 25,00,000/- F ROM SHRI VIJAY RAMAWAT, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND THE CONFIRMATION LETTER WAS FILED. THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY STATING THAT ONLY CONFIR MATION LETTER WAS FILED. THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING FILED COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER, PAN NO, COPY OF ACCOUN T OF THE LOAN CREDITOR IN THE BOOK OF THE APPELLANT AND COPY OF B ANK STATEMENT OF LOAN CREDITOR WHEREIN THE AMOUNT AS ADVANCED TO THE APPELLANT WAS PROPERLY REFLECTED. THE DOCUMENTS AS FILED BY THE A PPELLANT WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS BUT NOTHING NEW WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER, PAN NO, COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE LOAN CREDITO R IN HIS BOOKS OF SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 19 ACCOUNT AND COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LOAN CREDIT OR WHEREIN THE AMOUNT AS ADVANCED TO THE APPELLANT WAS DULY REFLEC TED. THE APPELLANT BY FILING AMPLE DOCUMENTS HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS LYING ON HIM AND NO CONTRARY FINDING WAS GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ON THESE DOCUMENTS EVEN IN REMAND PROCEEDING. I, THERE FORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 25,0 0,000/- AS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 4.4.6] M/S THE IESM ACADEMY, INDORE OF RS 32,00,000 /- THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDING ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS 32,00,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE APPELLANT BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 O F THE ACT BY STATING THAT ONLY THE COPY OF LEDGER WAS FILED. THE APPELL ANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING FILED THE COPY OF AC COUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOK OF M/STHE IESM ACADEMY, INDOR E AND CONTRA ACCOUNT IN THE BOOK OF THE APPELLANT, COPY OF COMPU TATION OF TOTAL INCOME AS FILED WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT, COPY OF FINAL ACCOUNT AND COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THAT PARTY. THE DOCUMENTS AS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER B UT IN THE REMAND REPORT NOTHING NEW WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM. ON PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOK OF THAT FIRM, IT IS CLEARLY EVIDENT THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS 1,65,682/- WAS DUE TO THE APPE LLANT AT THE BEGINNING AND AT THE END AN AMOUNT OF RS 2,18,833/- WAS PAYABLE BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT LET-OUT HIS PREMISE S TO THE SAID FIRM FOR USE OF OFFICE AND ALSO TO RUN HOSTEL BY IT. THE AMOUNT AS DUE FROM THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO REFLECTED IN ITS FINAL ACCOU NT AS RECEIVABLE FROM THE APPELLANT. THE TWO CHEQUES AS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE FIRM WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS NEITHER PROPER NOR CORRECT TO PICK ISOLATED ONE OR TWO TRANSACTIONS FROM WHOLE COPY OF ACCOUNT. THE AMOUNT AS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THAT FIRM AND SOURCE OF THE SAME IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE BANK STATEMENT. THE APPELLANT FROM THE AMPLE DOCUMENTS A S FILED DULY DISCHARGED ONUS LYING ON IT. HENCE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING AN AMOUNT OF RS 32,00,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 32,00,000/- MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 4.4.7]M/S JAIN INFRATECH , INDORE OF RS 29,70,000/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDING ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS 29,70,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE APPELLANT BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 O F THE ACT BY STATING THAT ONLY COPY OF LEDGER WAS FILED WITHOUT PAN. THE APPELLANT DURING SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 20 THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING FILED COPY OF AC COUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOK OF M/S JAIN INFRATECH AND CON TRA ACCOUNT OF M/S JAIN INFRATECH IN THE BOOK OF THE APPELLANT, CO PY OF FINAL ACCOUNT OF M/S JAIN INFRATECH AND COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT AN D COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF SHRI DEEPAK JAIN PROP OF M/S JAIN INFR ATECH. THE DOCUMENTS AS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT IN THE REMAND REPORT NOTHING NEW WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM. ON PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOK OF THAT FIRM IT WAS CLEARLY EVIDENT THA T AN AMOUNT OF RS 15,30,000/- WAS DUE TO THE APPELLANT AT THE BEGINNI NG AND AT THE END AN AMOUNT OF RS 4,40,000/- ONLY WAS PAYABLE BY THE APPELLANT. THE CHEQUES AS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS HI S DUES WERE ALSO ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS NEITHER LEGAL NOR PROPER. THE AMOUNT AS DUE FROM THE APPELLANT WA S ALSO REFLECTED IN ITS FINAL ACCOUNT AS RECEIVABLE FROM THE APPELLA NT. THE THREE CHEQUES AS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE FIRM WERE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT EVEN WHEN FIRST T WO CHEQUES WERE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE AMOUNT DUE FROM THAT FIRM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THEREFORE NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE OPENING BALANCE AND SIMPLY PICKINGUP SOME ENTRIES IN ISOLATION FOR MAKING ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE AMOUNT AS DU E FROM THE APPELLANT WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THAT F IRM, AND THE APPELLANTHAD FILED THE AMPLE DOCUMENTS SO AS TO DUL Y THE DISCHARGE ONUS LYING ON IT. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING AN AMOUNT OF RS 29,70,000/- TO THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE APPELLANT. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 29,70,000/- AS MADE TO THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE APPELLANT. 4.4.8] THE DECISIONS AS REFERRED ABOVEARE ALSO APPL ICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE APP ELLANT WITH THE SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTS HAS PROPERLY DISCHARGED ONUS L YING ON IT. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE T HE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS 1,59,30,06 0/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THUS ALLOWED. 14. LD. CIT-DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM UNSEC URED LOANS WERE TAKEN DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS RIGHT IN SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 21 OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GEN UINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE D EPOSITOR WITH CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE R EVENUE AUTHORITIES, RELIED UPON THE ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) A ND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION NOT ONLY IN RES PECT OF THE AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR BUT ALSO IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BACK DURING THE YEAR AGAINST THE AMOUNT INITIALLY ADVANCED TO THE GROUP CONCERNS WHI CH IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPREC IATE THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION COMPRISED OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM UNSECURED LOAN CREDITORS, AMOUNT RECEIVED AS ADVANCE AGAINST LAND AND AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM PARTIES TO WHOM LOANS AND ADVANCES WE RE GIVEN. THE ASSESSEE FILED VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THIS EXPLANATION AND THE LD. CIT(A) CALL ED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THESE DOCUMENT S FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND ON RECEIPT OF REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND I DENTITY AS WELL AS CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE THESE PARTIES. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 22 RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION. FURTHER, LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT/SYN OPSIS OF ARGUMENTS AS DETAILED IN THE PAPER BOOKS FILED BEFO RE US AND SUBMITTED THAT THE VIEW DRAWN IN THESE JUDICIAL PRO NOUNCEMENTS SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 15. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HAVING GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE DETAIL OF THE AMO UNTS RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES IN QUESTION IS SUMMARISED AS UNDER : S. NO NAME OF THE PARTY NATURE OPENING BALANCE [IN RS.] AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR [IN RS.] AMOUNT PAID DURING THE YEAR [IN RS.] CLOSING BALANCE [IN RS.] AMOUNT OF ADDITION [IN RS.] 1 ANJANA BHACHAWAT UNSECURED LOAN NIL 5,00,000 NIL 5,00,000 5,00,000 2 MANISHA MORYA UNSECURED LOAN NIL 18,00,000 NIL 18,00,000 18,00,000 3 VIJIT RAMAVAT UNSECURED LOAN NIL 25,00,000 NIL 25,00,000 25,00,000 SUB-TOTAL NIL 48,00,000 NIL 48,00,000 48,00,000 4 DEEPAK JAIN ADVANCE AGAINST LAND NIL 31,00,000 NIL 31,00,000 31,00,000 SUB-TOTAL NIL 31,00,000 NIL 31,00,000 31,00,000 5 SHREE MANGAL MURTEE TRADEX LOANS AND ADVANCES 21,05,056 18,60,060 96,51,955 (56,86,839) 18,60,060 SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 23 PRIVATE LIMITED 6 THE IESM ACADEMY LOANS AND ADVANCES (1,65,684) 32,00,000 28,15,481 2,18,835 32,00,000 7 JAIN INFRATECH [PROP. DEEPAK JAIN] LOANS AND ADVANCES (15,30,000) 29,70,000 10,00,000 4,40,000 29,70,000 SUB-TOTAL 80,30,060 80,30,060 GRAND TOTAL 1,59,30,060 1,59,30,060 FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE DETAILS, WE FIND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,59,30,060/- COMPRISED OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED F ROM UNSECURED LOAN CREDITORS, AMOUNT RECEIVED AS ADVANCE AGAINST LAND AND AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM PARTIES TO WHOM LOANS AND ADV ANCES WERE GIVEN. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FILED VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCES INCLUDING CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS, LEDGER EXTRACTS , INCOME-TAX ACKNOWLEDGMENT, BANK STATEMENT AND STATEMENT OF AFF AIRS/ AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THESE PARTIES SO AS TO JUST IFY THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTIONS AS ENTERED INTO WITH THEM AND THEREFOR E, THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON THESE DOCUMENTS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FILED REMAND REPO RT DATED 05-04- SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 24 2017 WHICH IS FILED BEFORE US AT PAGE NOS. 187-193 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT COMMENT ON ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEED INGS RATHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER REITERATED THE FINDINGS OF THE TH EN ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND I DENTITY AS WELL AS CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE PARTIES. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO AVAILABLE WITH THE A SSESSING OFFICER WERE FILED BEFORE US AS UNDER: S. NO DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS PAGE NO. OF PAPER BOOK 1 ANJANA BHACHAWAT [PAN: ARQPB6739A] ADDITION OF RS . 5,00,000/- 1.1 COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS OF THE UNSECURED L OAN CREDITOR 94 1.2 COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDIT OR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE 95 1.3 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDIT OR DULY HIGHLIGHTING THE AMOUNT AS ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE 96 2 MANISHA MORYA [PAN: AITPM2857J] ADDITION OF RS. 1 8,00,000/- 2.1 COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS OF THE UNSECURED L OAN CREDITOR 97 2.2 COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDIT OR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE 98 2.3 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DULY HIGHLIG HTING THE AMOUNT AS RECEIVED FROM THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDITOR 99 SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 25 3 DEEPAK JAIN [PAN: ABBPJ7325B] ADDITION OF RS. 31, 00,000/- 3.1 COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS OF THE UNSECURED L OAN CREDITOR 100 3.2 COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDITOR 101 3.3 COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INCOME-TAX RETURN ALONG W ITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDITOR FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010-11 102- 104 3.4 COPY OF STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDITOR FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2010 WHEREIN THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM THE ASSESSEE IS DULY REFLECTED 105 3.5 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDIT OR DULY HIGHLIGHTING THE AMOUNT AS ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE 106- 108 4 SHREE MANGAL MURTEE TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED [PAN: AA LCS7463B] ADDITION OF RS. 18,60,060/- 4.1 COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE 109 4.2 COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY 110 4.3 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE COMPANY DULY HIGHLIGH TING THE AMOUNT AS ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE 111 4.4 COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INCOME-TAX RETURN ALONG W ITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE COMPANY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11 112- 113 4.5 COPY OF AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2010 WHEREIN THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE ASSE SSEE IS DULY REFLECTED [PAGE NO. 124] 114- 129 5 VIJIT RAMAVAT [PAN: ADUPR0676G] ADDITION OF RS. 2 5,00,000/- 5.1 COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS OF THE UNSECURED L OAN CREDITOR 130 5.2 COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDIT OR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE 131 5.3 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDIT OR DULY HIGHLIGHTING THE AMOUNT AS ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE 132 6 THE IESM ACADEMY [PAN: AAEFT4206F] ADDITION OF RS . 32,00,000/- 6.1 COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE 133- 134 6.2 COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF THE CREDITOR 135- 136 6.3 COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INCOME-TAX RETURN ALONG W ITH COMPUTATION OF 137- SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 26 INCOME OF THE CREDITOR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 -11 139 6.4 COPY OF FINAL ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITOR FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2010 WHEREIN THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM THE ASSESSEE IS DULY REFLECTED [PAGE NO. 142] 140- 142 6.5 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE CREDITOR DULY HIGHLIG HTING THE AMOUNT AS ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE 143- 145 7 JAIN INFRATECH [PROP. DEEPAK JAIN] [PAN: ABBPJ7325B ] ADDITION OF RS. 29,70,000/- 7.1 COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDITOR 146 7.2 COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDIT OR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE 147 7.3 COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INCOME-TAX RETURN ALONG W ITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDITOR FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010-11 148- 150 7.4 COPY OF BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT O F THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDITOR FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2010 WHEREIN THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM THE ASSESSEE IS DULY REFLECTED 151 7.5 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DULY HIGHLIG HTING THE AMOUNT AS RECEIVED FROM THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDITOR 152 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, IT IS A PPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE SATISFACTORILY DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS CAST UPON HIM UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 TO EST ABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AS ENTERED INTO WITH THEM. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THESE FACTS, THE LD. CIT(A) EXAMI NED EACH AND EVERY ENTRY IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED FROM TH E CREDITORS AND REACHED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 27 OFFICER IS UNJUSTIFIED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT O F UNSECURED LOANS IF THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AS ENTERED INTO WITH THEM. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING J UDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: CIT, MEERUT V. AVANT GRADE CARPETS LTD. AS REPORTED IN [2015] 54 TAXMANN.COM 216 (ALL); CIT-1 V. APEX THERM PACKAGING (P.) LTD. AS REPORTED IN [2014] 42 TAXMANN.COM 473 (GUJ); CIT V. RANCHHOD JIVABHAI NAKHAVA AS REPORTED IN [20 12] 21 TAXMANN.COM 159 (GUJ.) ASHOK PAL DAGA V. CIT AS REPORTED IN [1996] 220 ITR 452 (MP); CIT V. METACHEM INDUSTRIES AS REPORTED IN [2000] 24 5 ITR 160 (MP) CIT V. MARK HOSPITALS (P.) LTD. AS REPORTED IN [201 5] 373 ITR 115 (MADRAS)(MAG.) 16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,59,30,060/- AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A CCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR BY INVOKIN G THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WAS NOT J USTIFIED AND WAS SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 28 RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS THE ASSESSEE F ILED REQUISITE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTIONS AS ENTERED INTO WITH THEM. THUS, WE CO NFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS POINT. ACCORDINGLY, GROUN D NO.2 RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 17. GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE WIT H REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITIONS OF RS.10,18,580/- MADE ON ACC OUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OUT OF PROPERTY INCOME AND RS.9,15,600/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OUT OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS O F REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK MORTGAGE LOA N AND HOME LOAN FROM ICICI BANK AND STATE BANK OF INDIA WHICH WERE USED TOWARDS REPAYMENT OF THE LOANS TAKEN EARLIER FOR PURCHASE O F THE PROPERTIES LET-OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCEMENT OF LOAN TO OTHER PARTIES FROM WHOM INTEREST INCOME WAS EARNED. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTERE ST PAID AGAINST THE INCOME OFFERED FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME F ROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSE SSEE ACTUALLY SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 29 PAID INTEREST OF RS. 37,27,311/- DURING THE YEAR ON THE AMOUNT OF LOANS / OVERDRAFT FACILITY TAKEN FROM BANKS AND DET AIL OF THE SAME IS AS SUMMARISED AS UNDER: S. NO PARTICULARS AMOUNT OF INTEREST [IN RS.] 1 LOAN FROM ICICI BANK LTD. 14,75,006 2 LOAN FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA 16,33,438 3 OVERDRAFT FACILITY FROM BANK OF BARODA 6,18,867 TOTAL 37,27,311 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS. 35,67,618/- ONLY AGAINST THE INCOME OFFERED FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF INTEREST O F RS. 37,27,311/- PAID BY HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND DETAIL OF THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 35,67,618/- CLAIMED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: S. NO PARTICULARS AMOUNT OF INTEREST CLAIMED [IN RS.] AMOUNT OF INTEREST DISALLOWED [IN RS.] SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 30 1 DEDUCTION OF INTEREST CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY 26,52,018 10,18,580 2 DEDUCTION OF INTEREST CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 9,15,600 9,15,600 TOTAL 35,67,618 19,34,180 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE PU RCHASED AND LET- OUT THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES SITUATED AT DHENU MAR KET PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SANCTION OF LOAN FROM ICIC BANK LTD. AN D STATE BANK OF INDIA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF LOAN TAKEN FO R PURCHASE OF OTHER PROPERTIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10,18,580/- OUT OF INTEREST CLAIMED U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER: S. NO DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AMOUNT OF INTEREST DISALLOWED [IN RS.] 1 13-14, DHENU MARKET 2,33,540 2 13-14, DHENU MARKET, 2 ND FLOOR 2,33,540 3 12, DHENU MARKET 1,01,500 4 103, HORIZON, SAKET NAGAR 3,00,000 5 SELF-OCCUPIED PROPERTY AT OLD PALASIA 1,50,000 TOTAL 10,18,580 SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 31 18. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE AC TION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS/CIRCUMSTANCES, MATERIAL AND SUBMISSIONS THERE OF DELETED THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 5] GROUND NO 6 5.1] THE ASSESSEE IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL HAS CHA LLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS 10,18,580/- OUT OF P ROPERTY INCOME. 5.2] THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR INTERES T OF RS 26,52,018/- UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED CLAIM FOR RS 10,18 ,580/- BY STATING THAT WHETHER INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE US ED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CLEAR. 5.3] THE DETAIL OF COST OF ASSETS AND CORRESPONDING INTEREST AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER:- S.NO DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY COST OF THE PROPERTY INTEREST CLAIMED INTEREST DISALLOWED 1 13-14, DHENU MARKET 3892340 467080 467080 2 12, DHENU MARKET 845890 101500 101500 3 103, HORIZON SAKET, INDORE 2505000 300000 300000 4 SOP 150000 150000 1018580 5.4] THE CLAIM OF INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LEGA L AND PROPER AND THE SAME WAS ALSO ACCEPTED IN THE SUCCEEDING YE ARS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER S AS PASSED FOR THE ASST YEARS 2009-10 & 2012-13 ARE ENCLOSED F OR YOUR KIND REFERENCE. SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 32 5.5] THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DEDUCTION OF IN TEREST AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LEGAL AND PROPER, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THEREFORE NOT RIGHT, THE SAME NOW REQUIRES TO BE DELETED IN FULL. 19. LD. CIT-DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITE RATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, RELIED UPON THE ORDER THE LD. CIT(A). 20. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF LOAN TAK EN FROM ICICI BANK LTD. AND STATE BANK OF INDIA WAS UTILIZED TOWA RDS REPAYMENT OF THE LOANS TAKEN EARLIER AND UTILIZED TOWARDS PUR CHASE OF THE PROPERTIES WHICH WERE LET-OUT AND RENTAL INCOME EAR NED THEREFROM WAS DULY OFFERED FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE INVESTED BY T HE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF COMMERCIAL AS WELL AS RESIDENTI AL PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST @ 12% ON THE AMOUNT BORR OWED FROM BANKS AND ACCORDINGLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST @ 12% OF THE COST OF PROPERTIES WHICH WERE EITHER LET -OUT OR SELF- SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 33 OCCUPIED. DETAIL OF THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED ON ACCOUN T OF INTEREST UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS SUMM ARIZED AS UNDER: S. NO DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY COST OF PROPERTY [IN RS.] AMOUNT OF INTEREST CLAIMED @12% WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER [IN RS.] 1 13-14, DHENU MARKET 38,92,340 4,67,080 (2,33,540 (+) 2,33,540) 2 12, DHENU MARKET 8,45,890 1,01,500 3 103, HORIZON, SAKET NAGAR 25,05,000 3,00,000 4 SELF-OCCUPIED PROPERTY AT OLD PALASIA 1,50,000 TOTAL 10,18,580 WE FIND THAT COPY OF REPAYMENT SCHEDULE/ LOAN STATE MENT IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN TAKEN FROM ICICI BANK LTD. AND STATE BA NK OF INDIA HAVE BEEN FILED ON PAGE NO. 161-174 OF THE PAPER BOOK SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID AND CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10,18,580/- MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS UNJUSTIFIED AS THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED TOW ARDS PURCHASE OF SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 34 THE PROPERTIES WHICH WERE LET-OUT AND RENTAL INCOME EARNED THEREFROM WAS OFFERED FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND MORE SO WHEN SUCH DEDUCTION ON ACCOUN T OF INTEREST WAS ALLOWED IN THE PRECEDING AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS POINT. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND N O.3 RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 21. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.4 WITH REGARD TO ADDITION O F RS.9,15,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE DIRECT NEXUS OF FUNDS BORROWED AND ADVANCED TO THE PARTIES FROM WHOM INTEREST INCOME W AS EARNED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AM OUNT OF RS. 9,15,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE DETAILS OF CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON THE BORROWED FUNDS ONLY TO THE EXT ENT OF INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES AND OFFERE D FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS AS UNDER: S. NO NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT OF INTEREST SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 35 INCOME [IN RS.] 1 JITENDRA SONI 6,08,000 2 LUNAWAT MANAGEMENT AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED 35,810 3 LUNAWAT PUBLICATIONS AND MEDIA PVT. LTD. 2,71,830 TOTAL 9,15,640 22. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS/CIRCUMSTANCES, MATERIAL AND SUBMISSIONS THERE OF DELETED THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 6] GROUND NO 7 6.1] THE ASSESSEE IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL HAS CLAI MED DEDUCTION FOR INTEREST OF RS 9,15,640/-. 6.2] THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST OF RS 35,67,618 /-, DEDUCTION FOR RS 26,52,018/- WAS CLAIMED FROM THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND RS 9,15,600/- WAS CLAIMED FROM INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 6.3] THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILISED ITS INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR ADVANCING TO DIFFERENT PARTIES AND INTEREST INCOME WAS EARNED FROM THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION T O THE EXTENT OF INTEREST RECEIVED. HENCE, CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF INTEREST AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LEGAL AND P ROPER. 6.4] THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANY NEW THING AND SIMPLY REFERRED THE FINDING OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AS DISCUSSED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORD ER. SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 36 6.5] THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF INTEREST HAS ALREAD Y BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND ALSO IN THE ASST YEAR 2012-13. COPY OF BOTH THE SE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE ENCLOSED FOR YOUR READY REFERE NCE. 6.6] THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CLAIM OF DEDUC TION OF INTEREST FROM INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WAS LEGAL AND PROPER . THE DEDUCTION FOR THE SAME NOW REQUIRES TO BE ALLOWED T O THE ASSESSEE. 23. LD. CIT-DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITE RATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, RELIED UPON THE ORDER THE LD. CIT(A). 24. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT AS OBSERVED BY US ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE UTILIZED THE BORROWED FUNDS TOWARDS REPAYMENT OF THE LOANS TAKEN EARLIER FOR PURCHASE O F THE PROPERTIES LET-OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCEMENT OF LOAN TO OTHER PARTIES FROM WHOM INTEREST INCOME WAS EARNED AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE FILED COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM LOANS WERE A DVANCED AND FROM WHOM INTEREST INCOME WAS EARNED AND OFFERED FO R TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THUS, THE ASS ESSEE CATEGORICALLY EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT BORROWED WA S ADVANCED TO SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 37 THESE PARTIES AND THEREFORE, INTEREST PAID ON THE B ORROWED FUNDS WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION AGAINST THE INTERE ST INCOME EARNED AND OFFERED FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON THE BORROWED FUNDS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF INTERES T INCOME EARNED FROM THE PARTIES AND OFFERED FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID AGAINST THE INCOME OFFERED FOR TAX UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WAS DULY EXAMINED AND ALLOWED IN THE PRECEDING AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT YEARS. A COMPARATIVE CHART SHOWI NG THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AGAINST THE INCOME OFFERED FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES IN THE PRECEDING AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT YEARS IS SUMMARIZE D AS UNDER: S. NO PARTICULARS ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 2010-11 (YEAR IN APPEAL) 2012-13 1 TYPE OF ASSESSMENT REGULAR ASSESSMENT SECTION 143(3) REGULAR ASSESSMENT SECTION 143(3) REGULAR ASSESSMENT SECTION 143(3) 2 DEDUCTION CLAIMED 7,44,657 9,15,600 17,95,623 SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 38 3 DEDUCTION ALLOWED 7,44,657 NIL 16,95,623 4 DEDUCTION DISALLOWED NIL 9,15,600 1,00,000 ON CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 9,15,600/- MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS UNJUSTIFIED AS THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED TOW ARDS ADVANCEMENT OF LOAN TO THE PARTIES FROM WHOM INTERE ST INCOME WAS EARNED AND WAS DULY OFFERED FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND MORE SO WHEN SUCH DEDUCTION ON A CCOUNT OF INTEREST WAS ALLOWED IN THE PRECEDING AS WELL AS SU BSEQUENT YEARS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS POINT. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND N O.4 RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 25. GROUND NO.5 OF DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND GROUND N O.2 OF CROSS-OBJECTION RELATE TO TAXABILITY OF AGRICULTURA L INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDEN CE IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN. THE ASSESSING SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 39 OFFICER ACCORDINGLY TAXED THE AMOUNT OF AGRICULTURA L INCOME OF RS. 8,14,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES. 26. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS/CIRCUMSTANCES, MATERIAL AND SUBMISSIONS THERE OF ACCEPTED THE INCOME OF RS.5 LACS AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME BUT THE REST INCOME WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE RELEV ANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDE R: GROUND NO 8 THE APPELLANT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL HAS CHALLENG ED THE TREATMENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AND ALSO DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING PROVIDED DETAI L OF AGRICULTURAL LAND GIVEN ON BATAI FOR RS 8,14,000/- TO VARIOUS PE RSONS. THE DETAIL CONTAIN NAME OF THE PERSON TO WHOM LANDS WERE GIVEN ON BATAI, NAME OF VILLAGE WHERE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SITUATE D, AREA OF LAND AND THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS CONSISTENTLY SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WA S DULY ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, YEAR-WISE DETAIL OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AND AS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AS UNDER:- S.NO PARTICULARS 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 1 AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS SHOWN 382000 814000 501400 9,00,000 2 AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS ACCEPTED 382000 NIL 501400 8,00,000 CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS OF THE CASE AND ON PE RUSAL OF THE ABOVE TABLE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT OWNED AGRICUL TURAL LAND WHICH WAS NOT DISBELIEVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSEL F. HENCE, TO MEET THE END OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO ACCEPT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5,00,000/-AN D THE APPELLANT SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 40 ACCORDINGLY GET RELIEF IN THIS GROUND. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED, BOTH THE PARTIES ARE BEFORE THIS T RIBUNAL. 27. LD. CIT-DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITE RATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, RELIED UPON THE ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF ACCEPTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.5 LACS. BUT, FOR NON-ACCEPTANCE OF RES T INCOME I.E. RS.3,14,000/-, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND FIRST APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY HIM WAS GIVEN ON BATAI AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED THEREFROM W AS DULY SHOWN IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF DID NOT DISBELIEVE THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS OWNED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE RE ST AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 28. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY HIM WAS GIVEN ON BATAI AND AGRICULTUR AL INCOME SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 41 EARNED THEREFROM WAS DULY SHOWN IN THE INCOME-TAX R ETURN AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF DID NOT DISBELIEVE THE AG RICULTURAL LANDS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED THE DETAIL OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS GIVEN ON BATAI AND FROM WHOM AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 8,14,000/- WAS RECE IVED DURING THE YEAR ALONG WITH THE DETAILS WITH RESPECT TO ARE A OF LAND GIVEN ON BATAI ON PAGE NO. 186 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSEE OWNED AGRICULTURAL LANDS COSTING RS. 5,64,74,791/- AS ON 01-04- 2009 AND RS. 5,81,65,931/- AS ON 31-03-2010 AS IS E VIDENT FROM THE AUDITED FINAL ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FILED ON PAGE NO. 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE AMOUNT OF AGRICUL TURAL INCOME WAS DULY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INCOME-TAX RE TURN EVERY YEAR AND THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE H AD ALSO BEEN DULY EXAMINED AND ACCEPTED IN THE PRECEDING AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT YEARS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING COMPARATIVE CHART: S. NO PARTICULARS ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 2010-11 (YEAR IN APPEAL) 2011-12 2012-13 1 TYPE OF ASSESSMENT REGULAR ASSESSMENT SECTION REGULAR ASSESSMENT SECTION SUMMARY ASSESSMENT SECTION REGULAR ASSESSMENT SECTION SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 42 143(3) 143(3) 143(1) 143(3) 2 AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN 3,82,000 8,14,000 5,017,400 9,00,000 3 AGRICULTURAL INCOME ACCEPTED 3,82,000 NIL 5,01,400 8,00,000 4 AGRICULTURAL INCOME NOT ACCEPTED NIL 8,14,000 NIL 1,00,000 29. ON CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR TH AT NON-ACCEPTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 8,14,000/- SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE IN HIS INCOME-TAX RETURN WAS UNJUSTIFIED MORE SO WHEN AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON A YEAR-TO-YEAR BASIS AND SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAD ALSO DULY BEEN EXAMINE D AND ACCEPTED IN THE PRECEDING AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT YEA RS. THUS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE AGRICULT URAL INCOME IN FULL I.E. RS. 8,14,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.5 RAISE D IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED WHEREAS GROUND NO.2 RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION IS ALLOWED. 30. GROUND NO.6 RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.18,99,796/- MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40 (A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE AMOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT CHARGES AS CHARGED BY M/S ARIHANT CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED . FACTS, SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 43 IN BRIEF, AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LATE PAYMENT CHARGES OF RS. 18,99,796/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OUT OF WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS. 18,24,4 47/- WAS PAID TO ARIHANT CAPITAL MARKET LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT TDS ON TH E AMOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT CHARGES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OF FICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 18,99,796/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA ) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. 31. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS/CIRCUMSTANCES, MATERIAL AND SUBMISSIONS THERE OF DELETED THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: GROUND NO 9 THE APPELLANT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL HAS CHALLENG ED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 18,99,796/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF L ATE PAYMENT CHARGES AS CHARGED BY M/S ARIHANT CAPITAL MARKETS L IMITED BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40[A][IA] OF THE ACT. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT AS DEBITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WAS REVERSED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVAN T TO THE ASST YEAR 2011-12. THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED A CERTIFICAT E FROM CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF M/S ARIHANT CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED DULY CERTIFYING THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 18,99,796/- AS CHARGED FROM T HE APPELLANT WAS DULY OFFERED FOR TAX BY THEM IN THEIR INCOME TA X RETURN. THE SAID ISSUE STANDS NOW SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT , SINCE THE SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 44 RECIPIENT HAS OFFERED THE INCOME IN ITS RETURN OF T OTAL INCOME AND THEREFORE THE APPELLANT IS NOT TO BE TREATED AS APP ELLANT INDEFAULT.SIMILAR ADDITION AS MADE IN THE CASE OF T HE APPELLANT IN THE ASSTYEAR 2009-10 HAS ALREADY BEEN DELETED BY THIS O FFICE VIDE ORDER APPEAL NO IT-193/ 15-16 / 185 DT 30-11-2016. CONSID ERING THE DECISIONS AS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AND PRESE NT POSITION OF LAW IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40[A][I A] OF THE ACT; I HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE A DDITION OF RS 18,99,796/- MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLA NT U/S 40[A][IA] OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TH IS TRIBUNAL. 32. LD. CIT-DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITE RATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, RELIED UPON THE ORDER THE LD. CIT(A). 33. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE BROKER, ARIHANT CAPITAL MARKET LTD. DEBITED THE AMOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT CHARGES ON THE AMOUNT WH ICH REMAINED OUTSTANDING ON ACCOUNT OF F & O TRADING AND PURCHAS E OF SHARES AND SECURITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED THA T THE SAID ENTRIES WERE UNILATERALLY PASSED BY THE BROKER AND AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TDS ON T HE AMOUNT OF SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 45 LATE PAYMENT CHARGES. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE AMOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT CHARGES UNILATERALLY DEBITED BY THE BROKER WERE REVERSED BY THE BROKER ITSELF IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR I.E. DU RING THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2010-11 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-1 2 AND WERE ACCORDINGLY OFFERED FOR TAX BY THE ASSESSEE IN THAT YEAR. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE AMOUNT OF LA TE PAYMENT CHARGES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY O F CERTIFICATE FROM THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE BROKER, ARIHANT CAP ITAL MARKET LTD. DURING THE COURSE OF FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS WHEREIN IT WAS DULY CERTIFIED THAT THE AMOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT CHAR GES CHARGED FROM THE ASSESSEE WERE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE BROKER AND REQUISITE AMOUNT OF TAXES DUE THEREON WERE ALSO PAID AND THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN RESPECT OF THIS CERTIFICATE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FILED REMAND REP ORT DATED 05-04- 2017 WHICH IS FILED ON PAGE NO. 187-193 OF THE PAPE R BOOK. ON PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT, WE FIND THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DID NOT COMMENT ON THE CERTIFICATE FILED BY THE ASSESS EE DURING THE SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 46 COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS RATHER THE ASSE SSING OFFICER SIMPLY REITERATED THE FINDINGS OF THE THEN ASSESSIN G OFFICER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED C OPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE BROKER, ARIHANT CAP ITAL MARKETS LTD. FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 AND FINANCIAL YEAR 2 010-11 AT PAGE NO. 179-182 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND COPY OF CERTIFICA TE OBTAINED FROM THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE BROKER, ARIHANT CAP ITAL MARKETS LTD. AT PAGE NO. 183 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FURTHER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LAW IS NO MORE RES-INTEGRA THAT SECOND PRO VISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 INSERTED BY T HE FINANCE ACT, 2012 WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2013 IS DECLARATORY AND CURATIVE IN NATURE AND IT SHALL HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01-04-2005. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUN CEMENTS: CIT-1 V. ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P.) LTD. [2015 ] 377 ITR 635 (DELHI) RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL V. ACIT, RANGE-3, MATHURA - [2 014] 45 TAXMANN.COM 555 (AGRA - TRIB.) DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD V. ESAOTE INDIA (NS ) LTD. - [2018] 96 TAXMANN.COM 624 (AHMEDABAD - TRIB.) DCIT, CIRCLE 1, UDUPI V. ANANDA MARAKALA - [2014] 4 8 TAXMANN.COM 402 (BANGALORE - TRIB.) ITO V. DR. JAIDEEP KUMAR SHARMA [2014] 34 ITR(T) 565 (DELHI - TRIB.) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI V. SATISH SEH RAWAT [2018] 92 TAXMANN.COM 231 (DELHI TRIB.) ACCME (URVASHI PUMPS) ENG. (P.) LTD. V. JCIT (OSD) CIRCLE-4 JAIPUR - [2018] 90 TAXMANN.COM 189 (JAIPUR - TRIB.) DILIP KUMAR ROY V. ITO, WARD-1, NADIA - [2016] 68 T AXMANN.COM 129 (KOLKATA - TRIB.) SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 47 NEW ALIGNMENT V. ITO, WARD-51(4), KOLKATA - [2016] 69 TAXMANN.COM 122 (KOLKATA - TRIB.) PUNJAB GOODS TRANSPORT (P.) LTD. V. ITO, WARD-12(3) , KOLKATA - [2017] 77 TAXMANN.COM 37 (KOLKATA - TRIB.) BRIJGOPAL MADHUSUDAN BHATTAD V. ITO, KHAMGAON - [20 15] 61 TAXMANN.COM 266 (NAGPUR - TRIB.) 34. ON CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT SHALL HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01-04-2005 AND IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND THE BENEFIT OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT SHALL BE AV AILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED AND FURNISHED THE CERTIFICATE OF THE CA OF THE BROKER WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY CERTIFIED THAT THE AMOUNT ON WHICH TDS NOT DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE WA S INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PAYEE AND REQUISITE AMOU NTS OF TAXES DUE WERE ALSO PAID ON IT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS POINT. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.6 RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 35. NOW, THE ONLY GROUND LEFT IS GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION WHICH IS REGARDING THE C ONFIRMATION OF SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 48 ADDITION OF RS.2 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS CULLED OUT FROM THE O RDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT RECEIVED BACK AGAIN ST THE AMOUNT ADVANCED EARLIER TO SHRI TARUN DASSANI AS THE ASSES SING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDEN TITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTY AND GENUINENESS OF TH E TRANSACTION AS ENTERED INTO WITH HIM. 32. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS/CIRCUMSTANCES, MATERIAL AND SUBMISSIONS CONFI RMED THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: ] GROUND NO 3 THE APPELLANT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL HAS CHALLENG ED THE ADDITION OF RS 2,00,000/- MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPEL LANT. THE APPELLANT HAD ADVANCED AN AMOUNT OF RS 2,00,000/- T O SHRI TARUN DASANI AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BACK FROM H IM. ON PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF ACCOUNT AS FILED BY THE APPE LLANT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING WHICH WAS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID ACCOUNT, IT APPEAR S THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS 2,00,000/- WAS FIRST ADVANCED BY THE A PPELLANT WHICH SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 49 WAS REFUNDED ON VERY NEXT DATE. THE APPELLANT DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ALSO BROUGHT THESE FACTS TO T HE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION AS MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND ALSO IN THE APPELLATE PRO CEEDING, I FIND THAT THE AMOUNT AS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT WAS NO THING BUT THE AMOUNT AS ADVANCED BY HIM RECEIVED BACK AND THEREFO RE THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ADDING THE SAME BY INVOKING TH E PROVISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER RE MAINS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVIDED COMPLETE POSTAL ADDRESSE S AND EVEN PAN NO OF THIS PARTY NEITHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDING NOR THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS.I THEREFORE HAVE NO HESITATIONIN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 2,00,000/- AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN CROSS-OBJECTION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 33. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD INITIALLY ADVANCED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/- TO S HRI TARUN DASSANI WHICH WAS RETURNED BACK BY HIM ON THE VERY NEXT DAY AND AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR TAXING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT-DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF TH E REVENUE AUTHORITIES. SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 50 34. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD INITIALLY ADVANCED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/- TO SHRI TARUN DASSANI WHICH WAS RETURNED BACK BY HIM ON THE VERY NEXT DAY AND BOTH THESE ENTRIES WERE IN ADVERTENTLY POSTED IN TWO DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS AS IS EVIDENT FROM PERUSAL OF COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHRI TARUN DASSANI IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE US AT PAGE NO. 184-185 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSE E AND UNJUSTIFIABLY ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY LOAN FROM SHRI TARUN DASSANI RATHER THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2, 00,000/- WAS INITIALLY ADVANCED TO SHRI TARUN DASSANI WHICH WAS RETURNED BACK BY HIM ON THE VERY NEXT DAY ITSELF, THERE WAS NO RE ASON FOR ADDING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. WE FIND T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 51 WAS NOTHING BUT THE AMOUNT INITIALLY ADVANCED BY HI M, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR ADDING THE SAME BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. BUT, THE LD. CIT(A) EVEN AFTER UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE NATURE OF THE TRANSACT ION SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT COMPLETE PO STAL ADDRESS AND PAN OF THE PARTY WAS NOT PROVIDED, WHICH, IN OUR H UMBLE OPINION, IS NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE NON-FURNISHING OF ADDRESS AND PAN OF THE PARTY TO WHOM AMOUNT IS ADVANCED CANNOT BY ANY STRE TCH OF IMAGINATION OF LEAD TO AN INFERENCE THAT SUCH AMOUN T CONSTITUTES INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THEREBY WARRANTING ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH JUSTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO SOURCE OF FUNDS ADVANCED TO SHRI TARUN DASSANI. HOWEVER, N O SUCH JUSTIFICATION WAS SOUGHT FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ADDI TION OF RS. 2,00,000/- WAS SUSTAINED IN UNJUST MANNER. THUS, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2 LACS. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 RAI SED IN THE ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION IS ALLOWED. 35. IN RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL I.E. ITA NO.396/ IND/2018 IS SANJAY LUNAWAT ITA NO.396/IND/2018 & C.O.NO.32/IND/2018 52 DISMISSED WHEREAS ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION NO.32/ IND/2018 IS ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AS PER RULE 34 OF ITAT RULES, 1963 ON 13.09.2021. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANISH BORAD) VICE-PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 13.09.2021 !VYAS! COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE