ITO, V. Shri Manish Nayak,

ITA 101/JAB/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 10122914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K UPADHYAYA
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Additional evidence; Documents seized
• Section: 133A; 68; 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 101/JAB./2010 ASST. YEAR :2002-03 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. SHRI MANISH NAYAK, WARD DAMOH. PROP. M/S. SHRINATH JEWELLERS, SARAFA BAZAR, DAMOH. (PAN : ABJPN 1790 Q) C.O. NO.17/JAB./2010 (IN ITA NO. 101/JAB./2010) ASST. YEAR :2002-03 SHRI MANISH NAYAK, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PROP. M/S. SHRINATH JEWELLERS, WARD DAMOH. SARAFA BAZAR, DAMOH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI K.K. UPADHYAYA, D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY GUPTA, C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 24.03.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.03.2014 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTIO N BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, JABALPU R DATED 25.05.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SEEKS PERMISSIO N TO WITHDRAW THE CROSS OBJECTION. SAME IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 4. THE REVENUE ON GROUND NO. 1 CHALLENGED THE DELET ION OF ADDITION OF RS.99,770/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U /S. 68 OF THE IT ACT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT SURVEY U/S. 133A WAS CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF ASSESSEE ON 09.11.2001. AS A RESULT OF SURVEY, CASH OF RS.1,70,000/- WAS FOUND FROM VAULT (TIJORI) AND RS.3,472/- FROM THE COUNTER . STATEMENT OF SHRI MANISH NAYAK WAS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. BOO KS OF ACCOUNT WERE FOUND WRITTEN UPTO 08.11.2001, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE CAS H BALANCE WAS OF RS.73,742/-. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DIF FERENCE OF RS.99,730/-. THE AO, THEREFORE, MADE ADDITION U/S. 68 HOLDING THE SA ME TO BE UNACCOUNTED CASH. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT CASH KE PT IN TIJORI WAS DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS ONE THAT SURPLUS CASH WAS KEPT FOR LONG ER PERIOD IN TIJORI AND OTHER TAKEN OUT DAILY FROM TIJORI FOR DAY-TO-DAY EXPENDIT URE. SURPLUS CASH KEPT IN TIJORI WAS DEBITED TO TIJORI ACCOUNT IN BOOKS OF AC COUNT AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. CASH IN TIJORI ACCOUNT WAS RS.1,00,000/-. T HE COPY OF TIJORI ACCOUNT ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 3 AND RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CASH BOOK WAS SUBMITTED AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF CASH OF RS.100000/- IS ADDED TO THE CASH BALANCE OF RS.73,743/-, THE TOTAL CASH ON THE DATE OF SURVEY FOUND WOULD HAVE BEEN 1,73,74 3/-. IT WAS ARGUED THAT SINCE SOURCE IS EXPLAINED, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE CORRECT. COPY OF CASH BOOK INCLUDING COPY OF TIJORI KHATA IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON THE DATE OF SURVEY CASH IN TIJORI KHATA WAS RS.1,00,000/- AS PER CASH BOOK AND CASH W AS OF RS.73,242/-. IT WAS, THEREFORE, AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ENTIRE CAS H FOUND WAS RECONCILED AND EXPLAINED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS FOUND UNNECE SSARY AND WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PB 10 AND PB 161 IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS TO SHOW THAT THE FACTS HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY APPRECIATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DE LETING THE ADDITION. NOTHING MUCH HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE LD. DR. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN D TIJORI KHATA, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH ON TH E DATE OF SURVEY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT EVEN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOUND SIGNATURE OF THE SURVEY PARTY TO SHOW THAT THE FIND INGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE IN ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 4 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NO T FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. SAME IS ACCORDINGLY D ISMISSED. 6. ON GROUND NO. 2, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELE TION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,83,452/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERVALUATION OF SILVE R ACCOUNT. 7. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED IN VESTMENT IN SILVER ORNAMENTS OF RS.58,910/- FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES O N ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND. THE AO BROUGHT OUT IN HIS ORDER THAT THE SIL VER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO HOW THE SILVER WEIGHING 100.475 KGS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS VALUED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION. O N THE BASIS OF THE SAME IT WAS BROUGHT OUT BY THE AO THAT EXCESS STOCK VALUING RS.3,84,278/- WAS FOUND ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSEES VALUATION. AS PER TRADIN G ACCOUNT WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, THE BALANCE OF SILVER IN THE BOOKS WAS OF RS.2,63,586/-. THUS, THE DIFFERENCE WAS OF RS.1,20,692/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLA INED THAT PURCHASE OF GOODS WEIGHING 15.364 GRAMS FROM M/S. BUNDESH SILVER CENT RE, KOLHAPUR WAS INCLUDED IN THE STOCK WHICH VALUED ABOUT RS.50,000/ -, BUT THE BILL OF WHICH WAS NOT RECEIVED TILL THAT POINT OF TIME. IT WAS CLARIF IED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SURVEY PARTY HAD VALUED THE STOCK OF SILVER AT MARK ET RATE WHEREIN THE GROSS PROFIT WAS ALSO INCLUDED. THE GROSS PROFIT WAS AROU ND 20% AND THEREFORE, ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 5 FURTHER STOCK WORTH RS.1,20,692/- STANDS EXPLAINED AND AFTER REDUCING FROM RS.1,20,692/- THE VALUE OF STOCK PURCHASED BUT NOT ACCOUNTED FOR AMOUNTING TO RS.50,000/-, THERE REMAINS STOCK WORTH RS.70,692/-. AFTER REDUCING 20% GP OF RS.11,782/-, THE BALANCE REMAINS DIFFERENCE IN STOC K OF RS.58,910/-. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY HAD AGREED TO SURRENDER UNACCOUNTED INCOME TO THIS EXTENT AND OFFERED RS.58,910/- FOR T AXATION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD MENTIONED THE RECEIPTS AGAINST OPENING STOCK, PURCHASE, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK IN SILVER ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE A O, THE VALUE STATED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LOGICAL RELATING TO RATES ETC. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE FACTS ARE DISTORTED. ACCORDING TO THE AO, IT APPLIED THE RATE FOR CLOSING STOCK @ 6135/- PER KG. THUS, IT VALUED THE STOCK OF 42.944 KGS AT RS.2,63,586/-. AS PER THE SURVEY, THE STOCK OF SILVER WAS FOUND WEIGHING 100. 475 KGS AND AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE STOCK OF SILVER WAS WEIGHING 42.944 KGS. THUS, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF 57.531 KGS. THE VALUE OF SILVER STO CK FOUND BY THE SURVEY TEAM WAS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.3,84,278/-. T HUS, THE RATE OF SILVER CAME TO RS.3834/- PER KG. THIS DID NOT TALLY WITH THE PR EVAILING MARKET RATE OR THE RATE MENTIONED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO HIM , THE VALUATION AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT VALUATION. ACCORD ING TO HIM THE VALUE OF EXCESS STOCK HAD TO BE TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF RATE O F 6135/- PER KG AS APPLIED BY ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 6 THE ASSESSEE FOR CLOSING STOCK. HE ACCORDINGLY WORK ED OUT THE VALUE OF 57.531 KGS OF SILVER AT RS.3,52,952/- AND AFTER GIVING CRE DIT OF RS.50,000/- REGARDING PURCHASE FROM KOLHAPUR AND GIVING FURTHER REDUCTION OF 20% ON ACCOUNT OF GP, HE WORKED OUT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.2,42,362/-. SINC E THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED RS.58,910/- FOR TAXATION, THEREFORE, THE BA LANCE OF RS.1,83,452/- WAS ADDED. 8. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE STARTED DEALING IN SILVER GIFT I TEMS. TO MEET EXPECTED MARKET DEMAND OF THE SILVER ITEMS IN DHANTERUS AND DIWALI, THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCUMULATED GIFT ITEMS STOCK AND TO FACILITATE EAS Y TRADING IN THESE ITEMS, RATE LIST WAS AFFIXED. MOST OF THE GIFT ITEMS STOCK WAS OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. DURING THE SURVEY 100.475 KGS OF SILVER STOCK WAS F OUND. THE SURVEY PARTY VALUED SILVER ITEMS ON THE BASIS OF CHITS ATTACHED TO THE ITEMS. FROM THE TOTAL VALUE SO WORKED , THE SURVEY PARTY DEDUCTED VALUE A S PER SILVER TRADING ACCOUNT PREPARED AS ON 08.11.2001, RS.2,63,586/- (WEIGHT 42 .944 KGS) AND BY DOING SO, THE VALUE OF EXCESS SILVER FOUND WAS WORKED OUT TO 1,20,692/- (WEIGHT 57.531 KGS). SINCE 15.384 KGS OF SILVER WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. GUNDESHA SILVER CENTER KOLHAPUR, HENCE, 15.384 KGS WAS REDUCED AND ULTIMAT ELY EXCESS STOCK WAS WORKED OUT. THE EXCESS STOCK REMAINED AT RS.70,692 /- AND AFTER DEDUCTING 20% ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 7 OF GP, THE EXCESS STOCK WAS WORKED OUT TO RS.58,910 /- WHICH VALUE OF THE EXCESS STOCK WAS ACCEPTED AND SURRENDERED. IT WAS C ONTENDED THAT THE AO FOR MAKING THE ADDITION HAS TAKEN THE RATE OF SILVER @ RS.6135/- PER KG AND APPLIED THIS RATE ON 57.531 KGS OF SILVER. THE AO ARRIVED A T THE FIGURE OF RS.3,52,952/- AND AFTER GIVING ABOVE DEDUCTION, MADE ADDITION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SURVEY TEAM HAD VALUED THE SILVER ITEMS STOCK ON TH E BASIS OF CHITS ATTACHED AND HENCE, THE VALUATION MADE BY THEM WAS CORRECT AND S HOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISTURBED BY THE AO WHO HAS NOT SEEN THE PHYSICAL I NVENTORY PREPARED BY THE SURVEY TEAM. FURTHER AS PER INVENTORY, THE VALUE OF SILVER STOCK VARIED FROM RS.1245/- PER KG. TO RS. 7053/- PER KG. THIS VALUAT ION WAS BASED ON GROUND REALITY AND NOT ON GUESS WORK. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SILVER ORNAMENTS LIKE PAYAL KARDON ETC. WAS HAVING MORE PURITY THAN GIFT ITEMS AND HAVE MORE VALUE THAN UNACCOUNTED GIF T ITEMS, HENCE, THE RATE APPLICABLE TO STOCK IN THE BOOKS COULD NOT BE APPLI ED TO THE TOTAL STOCK. THE AO HAS GIVEN LESSER BENEFIT OF GOODS RECEIVED FROM KOL HAPUR. IT WAS ARGUED SIMILARLY MORE VALUATION MADE ON THE BASIS OF CHIT ATTACHED HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE IN STATEMENT RECORDED ON 09 .11.2001 HAD GIVEN THE DETAILS OF EXCESS VALUE OF STOCK OF RS.58,910/- AND MADE SURRENDER. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS, THEREFORE, UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. CIT(A) ON EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD FOUND THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 8 CORRECT. IT WAS FOUND THAT IT WAS NOT ETHICALLY CO RRECT ON THE PART OF THE AO TO SATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO BEFOOL THE SURV EY PARTY. THE SURVEY PARTY HAVE MADE THE VALUATION OF STOCK CORRECTLY AND CAREFULLY AND RATES HAVE BEEN APPLIED CORRECT, WHICH WERE BASED ON THE SLIPS FOUND ATTACH ED WITH THE ITEMS. SINCE THE AO HIMSELF WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, I T IS NOT CORRECT ON HIS PART NOT TO ACCEPT THE VALUATION DONE BY THE SURVEY PART Y. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ACCEPTED THAT DIFFERENT SILVER ITEMS HAVE DIFFERENT PURITY AND SAME COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO ALL THE STOCK. THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS RECORDED IN WHICH HE HAS GIVEN EXPLANATION AND THE SURVEY PARTY WAS SATI SFIED WITH THE SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS F OUND UNJUSTIFIED AND THE SAME WAS DELETED. 9. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. CIT(A ) ACCEPTED THE VALUATION DONE BY THE SURVEY PARTY BASED ON FACTUAL INVESTIGA TION AND EXPLANATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE PH YSICAL VALUATION WAS DONE OF THE STOCK ON THE BASIS OF THE CHITS ATTACHED TO THE SILVER ITEMS AND SURRENDER BY ASSESSEE OF RS.58,910/- ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF EXCESS STOCK WAS ACCEPTED BY THE SURVEY PARTY. THEREFORE, THE AO ON THE BASIS OF HIS OWN CALCULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE DISTURBED THE VALUATION DONE BY THE SURVEY PARTY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 9 THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PB 111 ONWARDS TO SHOW THA T NO SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED ON THIS ISSUE AND ITEM-WISE INVENTORY WAS PR EPARED BY THE SURVEY PARTY. THEREFORE, THE VALUATION DONE BY THE SURVEY PARTY W AS CORRECTLY ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 10. ON GROUND NO.3, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELE TION OF ADDITION OF RS.60,789/- ON ACCOUNT OF GP ON SILVER ACCOUNT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INDULGED IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF SILVE R OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS BASED ON UNRECORDED STOCK OF SILVER FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY MENTIONED RS.4,08,793/- AS CLOSING BALANCE WITHOUT MENTIONING THE WEIGHT OF THE CLOSING STOCK. THE AO QUESTIONED AS TO WHAT WAS THE RATE APPLIED TO THE CLOSING STOCK FOR WORKING OUT THE VALUATION OF SILVER. HE ACCORDINGLY PREPARED THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF SILVER ON THE BASIS OF WEIGHT AND BOUGHT OUT THAT THE SILVER REMAINING AS CLOSING STOCK WAS 113.457 KGS, THE VALUE OF WHICH WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E AS RS.4,08,793/- AS ON 31.03.2002. ACCORDING TO THE AO, IT COULD NOT BE A CCEPTED AS TRUE AND CORRECT FIGURE. HE, THEREFORE, TOOK OUT THE RATE OF SILVER AS ON 31.03.2002 FROM BHARAT DIRECT TAX READY RECKNOR WHICH REFLECTED THE SAME T O RS.7875/- PER KG. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN HABIT OF S HOWING THE TURNOVER 50% OF ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 10 THE CLOSING STOCK WHEREAS THE LOCAL PROFIT SHOWN TH E CLOSING STOCK OF 25% TO 30% OF THE TURNOVER. HE, THEREFORE, APPLIED THE PRO VISION OF SECTION 145 AND ESTIMATED THE TOTAL SALES AT RS.5 LACS AND APPLYING THE GP RATE OF 20% WORKED OUT THE PROFIT OF RS.1,00,000/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GP OF RS.39,211/-, THE BALANCE OF RS.60,789/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THE WEIGHT WAS WRONGLY TAKEN AT 113.459 KGS BY THE AO WHEREAS THE CORRECT WEIGHT WAS ONLY 98.095 KGS. FURTHER THE AO HAD WRONGLY APPLIED PURE SILVER RATE AS PER BHARAT DIRECT TAX READY RECKNOR. THE STOCK IS TO BE VALUED AT COST OR MARKET PRICE WHICHEVER IS LESSER. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE COMES TO RS.4172/- PER KG. THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE FORMULA OF THE AO IS APPLIED, THE SALES WOULD BE LESS THAN RS.2,00,000/-. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED DAY-TO-DAY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IN WHICH NO DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO. IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE AO THAT DURI NG THE COURSE OF SURVEY ANY MATERIAL WAS FOUND TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING UNACCOUNTED SALES. THEREFORE, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE REJECTED FOR LOW GP RATE ONLY. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE C ORRECT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CASH BOOK WA S WRITTEN UPTO 08.11.2001. WHATEVER EXCESS STOCK WAS FOUND WAS SUR RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE TAX WAS PAID THEREON. NO OTHER MATERIAL WAS FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS NO BASIS TO ESTIMATE THE SALE AT RS.5,00, 000/-. THE ENTIRE STOCK COULD ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 11 NOT HAVE BEEN VALUED AT THE SAME MARKET PRICE. ACCO RDINGLY, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. 11. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED IN THE MATTER. TH E SMALL EXCESS STOCK WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, WHICH WAS SURREN DERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTED BY THE SURVEY PARTY. NO OTHER MATERIAL WAS FOUND TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. T HEREFORE, SALES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENHANCED WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AND FOR LOW GP, THE ADDITION WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APP EAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. ON GROUND NO.4, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELE TION OF ADDITION OF RS.80,774/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERVALUATION OF GOLD OR NAMENTS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT AS A RESULT OF SURVEY, ALL THE STOCK OF GOLD V ALUED AT THE RATE OF PURCHASE PRICE WAS OF RS.19,80,328/- WHEREAS AS PER TENTATIV E TRADING ACCOUNT PREPARED ON THE DATE OF SURVEY, STOCK AS PER BOOKS WAS OF RS .15,99,554/-. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS REC ORDED TO EXPLAIN THE STOCK, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ENTIR E STOCK WAS VALUED CONSIDERING THE GOLD TO BE OF 22 CARAT WHEREAS GOLD OF 20 CARAT WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN THIS STOCK. SMALL STOCK WAS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE OF ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 12 RS.3,00,000/-. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIFFERENCE OF RS.80,774/- WAS ADDED. IT WAS SUBMITT ED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED LIST OF ORNAMENTS TO SH OW ORNAMENTS OF 18 CARETS AND 20 CARETS PURITY. SURVEY PARTY WAS SATISFIED WITH T HE SURRENDER OF RS.3,00,000/-. THEREFORE, FURTHER ADDITION WAS UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD . CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT THE STOCK ITEMS HAVE 18 AND 20 CARATS OF GOLD AND ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION WAS DELETED. 13. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THE ADDITION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED BEFORE US THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS M ADE SURRENDER OF EXCESS STOCK OF RS.3,00,000/-, THEREFORE, FURTHER ADDITION WOULD BE UNJUSTIFIED. IN THIS CASE, SURVEY PARTY ACCEPTED THE SURRENDER OF THE AS SESSEE OF EXCESS STOCK OF GOLD. THEREFORE, THE AO SHOULD NOT HAVE SUBSTITUTED THE OPINION OF THE SURVEY PARTY WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION. THIS GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 14. ON GROUND NO. 5, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DEL ETION OF ADDITION OF RS.10,61,752/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF GOLD OR NAMENTS FOUND IN A BLACK BAG DURING THE SURVEY. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER OBSERVED THAT THE SURVEY ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 13 PARTY HAD FOUND A BLACK BAG FILLED WITH NEW GOLD OR NAMENTS WEIGHING 4130.610 GMS., THE DETAILS OF WHICH WERE BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS WAS VALUED @ RS.3,200/- PER 10 GMS. (20 CARATS) FOR RS.13,21,795 /-. THE ASSESSEE WAS QUESTIONED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ABOUT ITS OWNE RSHIP AND THE DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHOM THE BAG BELO NGED AND TO WHOM THE GOLD ORNAMENTS CONTAINED THEREIN BELONGED AND THE ASSESS EE'S STATEMENT WAS BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THUS THE ASSESS EE WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF 2324.810 GMS. REGARDING BALANCE OF 1805.800 GMS. IT WAS ACCEPTED TO BE HIS OWN STOCK, THE INVESTMENT IN WHICH WAS SURRENDERED. DURING THE RECORDING OF STATEMENT ITSE LF IT WAS MADE CLEAR TO THE APPELLANT THAT THE RATE OF 20 CARATS OF GOLD STATED BY HIM WAS RS.3,200/- WHEREAS IT ACTUALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN RS.3,883/-. THUS THE V ALUE OF 1805.800 GMS. OF GOLD @ RS.3,883 PER 10 GMS. WAS WORKED OUT TO RS.7, 01,192/-. IT WAS THUS MADE CLEAR TO THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS TOTAL SURRENDER WAS OF RS.7,01,192/- + RS.3,00,000/- + RS.58,910/- ON ACCOUNT OF SILVER TO TALING TO RS.10,60,102/- FOR WHICH HE HAD AGREED TO PAY THE TAXES AND IF HE HAD ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE SAME, HE SHOULD EXPRESS. IN HIS REPLY THE APPELLANT HAD ADM ITTED THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION OR DOUBT ABOUT THE SURRENDER. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCES IN RESPECT OF CLAIM MADE BY HIM THAT THE GOLD ORNAMENTS WEIGHING 2324.8 10 GMS. PERTAINED TO ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 14 SEVERAL PERSONS WHO HAD DEPOSITED THE SAME WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING NEW ORNAMENTS, REPAIRING AND POLISHING. THE ASSESSEE'S FATHER FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF 15 PERSONS. THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER BROUGHT OUT THE CONT ENTS OF THE AFFIDAVITS AND OBSERVED THAT ALL THE AFFIDAVITS WERE SIMILAR AND S TEREO TYPE AND ALL THE DEPONENTS WERE IDENTIFIED BY SHRI RAJESH VISHWAKARM A. DAMOH. FURTHER THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVITS AND THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED ON 9.11.2001 WERE VERY DIFFERENT. FOR THESE REASONS TH E A.O. WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE AFFIDAVITS AND THEREFORE HE ASKED THE ASSE SSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE DEPONENTS FOR THEIR EXAMINATION ON OATH. THE STATEM ENTS OF ALL THESE PERSONS WERE RECORDED. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THEY DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING GOLD HAVING BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. FURTHER THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF DEPONENTS HAD NOT BEEN PROVED WITH DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE THAT THEY WERE CAPABLE OF GIVING SUCH GOLD ORNAMENTS FOR REPAIRING AND POLISHING AND MAKING NEW ORNAMENTS. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. NONE OF THE G OLD ORNAMENTS FOUND IN THE BLACK BAG APPEARED AS IF THEY WERE USED OR OLD ORNA MENTS. ACCORDING TO HIM, THEY WERE BRAND NEW ORNAMENTS. NONE OF THE GOLD ORN AMENTS HAD ANY TAG AS A MARK OF BELONGING TO SOME ONE ELSE. MOREOVER, THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN SHOWING RECEIPT FOR REPAIRING AND POLISHING IN THE P&L ACCOUNT, HE WAS NOT SHOWING ANY AMOUNT PAID TO POLISH-MAN AND REPAIRER. THEREFORE IN ABSENCE OF CLINCHING EVIDENCES AND CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL IT W AS HELD BY HIM THAT THE ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 15 ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE ENTIRE GOLD WHICH WAS FO UND IN BLACK BAG WEIGHING 4130.610 GMS. FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE RATE PR EVAILING ON THAT DATE WAS OF RS.4,268/- PER 10 GMS. AND THEREFORE ITS VALUE S HOULD HAVE BEEN RS.17,62,9447-. SINCE THE VALUE OF RS.7,01,192/- WA S SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE BALANCE OF RS. 10,6 1,752/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. 15. IT WAS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) THAT DURING SURVEY A BLACK BAG CONTAINING GOLD ORNAMENTS BELONGING TO TH E APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE CUSTOMERS WAS FOUND. THE GOLD ORNAMENTS ON WHICH CH ITS CONTAINING THE NAMES OF THE CUSTOMERS WAS ATTACHED WERE OF THE CUSTOMERS WHOSE NAMES HAD BEEN MENTIONED IN THE CHITS WHEREAS THE GOLD ORNAMENTS H AVING NO CHITS ATTACHED TO IT BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLA NT HAD SURRENDERED THE VALUE OF THESE GOLD ORNAMENTS DURING THE SURVEY IN HIS ST ATEMENT ON OATH RECORDED ON 09/11/2001. IN HIS STATEMENT THE APPELLANT HAD GIVE N THE NAMES OF THE CUSTOMERS TO WHOM THE GOLD ORNAMENTS BELONGED ON THE BASIS OF CHITS ATTACHED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THESE CUSTOMERS WE RE ALSO PRODUCED AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE ALSO RECORDED BY THE A.O. IN THE ST ATEMENTS ALL THE CUSTOMERS HAD ACCEPTED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE GOLD ORNAMENTS BU T THE A.O. DOUBTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENTS. COPY OF STATEMENT ON OATH RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY AND COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE CUSTOMER S WERE ENCLOSED FOR READY REFERENCE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN QUESTION NO.3 THE SURVEY PARTY AFTER DUE ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 16 CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS AVAILABLE W ORKED OUT THE VALUE OF UNDISCLOSED GOLD ORNAMENTS AT RS.7,01,192/- AND THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED THE VALUE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WORKED OUT BY THE SURVE Y PARTY. THE PURITY OF THE GOLD ORNAMENT WAS 20 CARAT ONLY AS IS MENTIONED IN THE INVENTORY PREPARED BY THE SURVEY PARTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS O NUS IN RESPECT OF GOLD ORNAMENTS FOUND IN BLACK BAG HENCE THE RATIO OF THE HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF METACHEM INDUSTRIES V CIT ( 2000) 245 I TR 160 WAS APPLICABLE. IN THIS CASE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT :- ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN IN VESTED BY A PARTICULAR PERSON, BE HE A PARTNER OR AN INDIVIDU AL, THEN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS OVER. WHETHER THA T PERSON IS AN INCOME TAX PAYER OR NOT AND WHERE HE HAD BROUGHT THIS MONEY FROM IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FIRM. T HE MOMENT THE FIRM GIVES A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AN D PRODUCES THE PERSON WHO HAS DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT, T HEN THE BURDEN OF THE FIRM IS DISCHARGED AND IN THAT CASE T HAT CREDIT ENTRY CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE FIR M FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME TAX. IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION OF HON' BLE M. P. HIGH COURT SINCE ALL THE CUSTOMERS HAS ACCEPTED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE GOL D ORNAMENTS IN WHICH CHIT OF THEIR NAME WAS ATTACHED HENCE, ADDITION OF RS.10 ,61,752/- MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WAS AGAINST THE LAW. ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 17 16. THE LD. CIT(A), CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION. HIS FINDINGS IN THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE R EPRODUCED AS UNDER : NOW THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. THE BAG CONTAINED THE GOLD ORNAMENTS NOT ONLY BELON GING TO THE APPELLANT BUT ALSO TO THE CUSTOMERS FOR THE REASON THAT IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN GOLD ORNAMENTS, CHITS CONTAINING THE NAME O F THE CUSTOMERS WERE FOUND ATTACHED WITH SUCH GOLD ORNAMENTS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, ON THE BASIS OF THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ONLY TH E APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ITSELF, WHILE HIS STATE MENT WAS BEING RECORDED WAS ABLE TO SPECIFY AS TO HOW MUCH GOLD OR NAMENTS BELONGED TO WHICH PERSON. IN FACT, IF CHITS WERE NO T AVAILABLE, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR THE APPELLANT TO N AME THE PARTIES TO WHOM THEY BELONGED. THERE WERE 15 PARTIES AND EA CH HAS SUBMITTED GOLD ORNAMENTS OF A PARTICULAR WEIGHT ON A PARTICULAR DATE AND IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE APPELLANT TO M ENTION SUCH DETAILS IN HIS STATEMENT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, ALL THESE HAVE BEEN BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF WHICH MA KE IT CLEAR THAT TO THE EXTENT IT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED TO BE BELONGIN G TO OTHER PARTIES, THEY CANNOT BE HELD TO BE BELONGING TO THE APPELLAN T. SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN SATISFAC TORILY THE SOURCE OF REMAINING GOLD ORNAMENTS, IT WAS IN ALL FAIRNESS SURRENDERED BY HIM AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ITSELF. THIS ALSO INDICAT ES THAT IF PART OF THE GOLD ORNAMENTS DID NOT BELONG TO OTHERS BUT TO THE APPELLANT HIMSELF, HE WOULD HAVE ADMITTED THE OWNERSHIP IN RE SPECT OF THEM ALSO AND ACCORDINGLY WOULD HAVE MADE THE SURRENDER. FURTHER THE DOUBTS RAISED BY THE A.O. AND THE DIFFERENCES BROUG HT OUT BY HIM IN THE APPELLANT'S STATEMENT AND IN THE AFFIDAVITS HAV E BEEN REASONABLY CLARIFIED AND EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT . STILL FURTHER THE SURVEY PARTY HAVING BEEN PROPERLY SATISFIED ONL Y ACCEPTED THE APPELLANT'S STATEMENT REGARDING SURRENDER OF THE BA LANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,01,192/-. IN FACT KEEPING IN MIND TH ESE ONLY THE APPELLANT WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED WHETHER HE HAD ANY OBJECTION OR DOUBT ABOUT THE SAME. SINCE SURVEY PARTY HAD ALREAD Y ACCEPTED THE REASONABLE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF GO LD IN THIS BLACK BAG ONLY TO THE EXTENT IT REMAINED UNEXPLAINED, THE SURRENDER MADE BY THE APPELLANT WAS ACCEPTED, OTHERWISE THE APPELL ANT WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPELLED TO SURRENDER THE INVESTMENT IN ENTIR E GOLD ORNAMENTS FOUND IN THE BAG. FURTHER SO FAR THE AFFI DAVITS OF THESE ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 18 PERSONS IS CONCERNED, EVEN IF THEY WERE STEREO TYPE IT DID NOT MEAN THAT THE CONTENTS WERE INCORRECT OR BOGUS AND HENCE UNVERIFIABLE. SLIGHT VARIATION IN STATEMENT MAY ALWAYS BE THERE B UT IF IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVITS SUPPORT TH E STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT, THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE. NO DRASTIC OR SUBST ANTIAL SHORT- COMING HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. NOR HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THESE DEPONENTS SO AS TO BRING OUT THE F ACT THAT THE GOLD ORNAMENTS DID NOT BELONG TO THEM BUT RATHER BELONGE D TO THE APPELLANT HIMSELF. FURTHER THE PREVAILING RATE APPL IED BY THE A.O. @ RS.4,268/- PER 10 GMS. WAS ALSO NOT CORRECT BECAU SE THE RATE AND THE VALUE HAD ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED BY THE SU RVEY PARTY ITSELF. IT SEEMS THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE FOR THE SAKE OF ADDITION ONLY WHICH WAS NOT CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDI TION OF RS.10,61,752/- IS HEREBY DELETED. 17. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO PB 21 AND 22 WHICH IS INITIAL STATEMENT AND ALSO REFERRED TO QUESTION NO. 17 TO SHOW PROPER EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN ON THIS ISSUE. PB 14 IS FINAL STATEMENT AND QUESTION NO. 3 IS REGARDING SURRENDER MADE. THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAI N PART OF THE GOLD ORNAMENTS AND WHATEVER STOCK COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED, THE ASSE SSEE HAS MADE SURRENDER OF THE SAME. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, ON PROPER APPR ECIATION OF FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 19 18. ON GROUND NO. 6, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DEL ETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,21,691/- ON ACCOUNT OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INDULGED IN PURCHASE AND SALES OF GOLD ORNAMENTS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS AND ACCORDINGLY BOOK RESULTS WERE REJECTED AND ADDITION WAS MADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT NO QUERY WAS RAISED ON T HIS ISSUE AND THERE WAS NO BASIS TO MAKE ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. IT IS STA TED BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT THIS GROUND IS SAME AS IS CONSIDERED ON ACCOUNT OF SILVE R ACCOUNT IN WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) SIMILARLY DELETED THE ADDITION. FOLLOWING TH E SAME FINDING WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL. 19. ON GROUND NO. 7, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DEL ETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,43,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT . THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED FUNDS FROM NINE CASH CREDITOR S TOTALING TO RS.1,43,000/-. THE AO IN THE ABSENCE OF MATERIAL ON RECORD MADE TH E ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH AFFIDA VITS OF THE CREDITORS FOR ADMISSION U/R 46A. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOUR CONFI RMATIONS WERE FILED, BUT FOR REMAINING, THE SAME COULD NOT BE FILED AND NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE AFFIDAVITS OF ALL THE CREDITORS IN WHICH SMALL AMOU NTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THE CREDITORS. THE COMMENTS OF THE AO WERE CALLED FOR O N THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 20 ASSESSEE. THE COPY OF ORDER SHEET OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS FILED TO REVEAL THAT AT NO POINT OF TIME THE ASSESSEE WAS AS KED TO PRODUCE THE CASH CREDITORS WHILE CONFIRMATIONS OF FIVE PERSONS WERE FILED. THE CREDITORS WERE NEVER CALLED FOR PERSONAL EXAMINATION. AFFIDAVITS W ERE ACCORDINGLY ADMITTED U/R. 46A OF THE IT RULES. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL THE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO EXPLAIN THE CASH CRED ITS AND IN ALL FAIRNESS, THE AO SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE CREDITORS IF HE WAS NOT SA TISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT OF CASH CREDITS WAS NOT FOUND SO HIGH AND ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEE N ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE CREDITS IN THE MATTER. THE ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED . 20. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT APPELLATE STAGE. SMALL AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM NINE CREDITORS AND AFFIDAVITS CONTAINED THEIR MONTHLY INCOME AND CREDI TORS HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED THE RETURN OF THE AMOUNTS TO THEM. THE AO HAS NOT ADVER SELY COMMENTED UPON THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE CREDITORS AND THE AO NEVER INSIST ED FOR EXAMINATION OF THE CREDITORS AT ANY POINT OF TIME. CONSIDERING THE SMA LLNESS OF THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION AND THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH IS NOT ITA NO.101/JAB/2010 & CO NO. 17/JAB/2010 21 CHALLENGED IN APPEAL, WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE REVENU E HAS ACCEPTED THE FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) REGARDING GENUIN E CREDIT IN THE MATTER. WE ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECO RD, DO NOT THINK IT PROPER TO DISTURB THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, JABALPUR 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CAMP AT JABALPUR TRUE COPY