M/s. Jindal (India) Textiles, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(2), Surat

ITA 125/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89543 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C MISHRA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Salary income; Wrong claim
• Section: 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA S NO . 125 /AHD/20 12 A. Y .200 6 - 0 7 M/S. JINDAL (INDIA) TEXTILES 144 - 145, AJANTA SHOPPING CENTRE, RING ROAD, SURAT. PAN: AABFJ 9112F VS ITO, WARD 2 ( 2 ), SURAT . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S HRI D.C. MISHRA, SR. D.R. , ASSESSEE(S) BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSION (NONE) / DATE OF HEARING : 8 / 05 /201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 9 / 0 6 /201 5 / O R D E R PER SHRI S.S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 200 6 - 0 7 , ARISE S FROM OR DER OF CIT(A) - II , SURAT DATED 25.2.2010 PASSED I N CASE NO .CAS/11/447/08 - 09 UPHOLDING IMPUGNED ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.11,90,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S.68, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. CASE CAL LED TWICE. NONE PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE. REGISTRY HAS SENT AN RPAD NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 20.3.2015. THE SAME HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION RECEIVED ON 5.5.2015 ALONG WITH A CAT E NA OF CASE LAW AS WELL AS COPY OF BOOK S OF ACCOUNT. INCOME TAX RETURNS AND COMPUTATION STATEMENTS AND BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA MEENA. WE PROCEED EX - PARTE AGAINST ITA NO. 125 /AHD/20 12 M /S. JINDAL (INDIA) TEXTILES FOR A.Y. 200 6 - 0 7 - 2 - THE ASSESSEE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCE. THE ABOVESAID DOCUMENTS ARE TAKEN ON RECORD SUBJECT TO ALL JUST EXCEPTIONS. WE PRO CEED TO DEAL WITH THE CASE ON MERITS. 3. THE ASSESSEE - FIRM TRADES IN TEXTILE ITEMS. THE SOLE QUESTION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT OF AFORESAID ADDITION TO RS.11,90,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED THESE LOANS FROM SHRI KAILASH CHAND RA MEENA IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS WELL AS THAT AS AN HUF TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,90,000/ - AND RS.4,00,000/ - ; RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO VERIFY IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE LOAN INSTANCES. HE ISSUED A SECTION 131 NOT ICE TO THE ABOVESAID CREDITOR. THE SAID PERSON VERIFIED TO HAVE ADVANCED LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS HUF CAPACITY. HIS STATEMENT IS EVIDENT FROM 3 TO 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTER ALIA NOTICED THA T THERE WERE CERTAIN CHINKS IN THE ABOVESAID DEPOSITION REGARDING THE SALE PURCHASE OF THE SAREES AND OTHER BUSINESS ITEMS, ACQUISITION OF THE CASH AMOUNT IN QUESTION, SOURCE OF THE OPENING BALANCE AND ALSO THE FACT THAT HIS ADDRESS WAS SAME AS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO FOUND THAT BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SAID CREDITOR WAS INTRODUCED BY SHRI PRADEEP AGARWAL ; MANAGER AND SON OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM S PARTNER SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA AGARWAL. IT FURTHER EMANATED THAT A CHEQUE OF RS.4 LACS WAS CREDITED BY SHRI MEENA ON 27.03.2006 . T HE SAME WAS ISSUED BY SHRI PRADEEP AGARWAL (SUPRA). THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT SHRI MEENA S RETURNS WERE PRIMA FACIE BOGUS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVESAID DISCREPANCIES. HE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THESE OVERWHELMING FACTS ON RECORD TO TREAT THE IMPUGNED DEPOSITS IN THE ITA NO. 125 /AHD/20 12 M /S. JINDAL (INDIA) TEXTILES FOR A.Y. 200 6 - 0 7 - 3 - ASSESSEE S ACCOUNTS READING RS.11.90 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS LIABLE TO BE ADDED U/S.68 OF THE ACT. HE ACTED ACCORDINGLY . 4. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO UPHELD THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER S FINDINGS AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BOTH THE POSITIONS. THE BASIC THRUST OF THE AR IS THAT, THE AO WAS VERY PASSIONATE IN TRYING TO PROVE THAT THE CASH CREDITS WERE BOGUS, AND IN THE PROCESS, HE DREW INFERENCES WHICH WERE NOT ONL Y INCORRECT AND BASELESS BUT ALSO MISCHIEVOUS, WHICH ACCORDING TO ME IS A RATHER STRONG STATEMENT TO MAKE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN ALLEGED THAT THE AO SUMMARILY REJECTED ALL THE EXPLANATIONS AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. SUCH ALLEGATIONS HOWEVER CONCEAL THE FACT THAT THE AR HAS NOT REALLY BEEN ABLE TO REBUT THE FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO, SOME OF WHICH WERE VERY CRUCIAL TO THE ISSUE. THESE ARE DISCUSSED IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. 6.1 TWO LOANS TOTALLING RS 1 1,90,000 WERE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM SHRI KAILASHCHANDRA MEENA, INDIVIDUAL AND KAILASHCHANDRA MEENA HUF. IN ORDER TO SHOW THE LOANS, TWO BANK ACCOUNTS WERE OPENED IN THE NAMES OF SHRI KAILASHCHANDRA MEENA, INDIVIDUAL AND THE HUF, BOTH ON 09 - 03 - 2006 I.E. AT THE FA G END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. VARIOUS SUMS WERE DEPOSITED TOWARDS THE END OF THE MONTH, ON 27 TH , 28 TH AND 29 TH MARCH, 2006 AND ON THE SAME DAYS CHEQUES OF EQUIVALENT AMOUNTS WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOANS. IN ORDER TO FURTHER TIE UP THE TRANSACTIONS AND TO GIVE THEM AN APPEARANCE OF AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS, SHRI KAILASHCHANDRA MEENA WAS MADE TO FILE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2006 - 07. IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED IN THE NAME OF THE INDIVIDUAL, THE OPENING CAPITAL B ALA NCE AS ON 01 - 04 - 2005 WAS SHOWN AT RS 8,25,094 W HILE THE CAPITAL BALANCE IN THE HANDS OF THE HUF WAS SHOWN AT RS . 7,89 ,8 28. THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL WAS SHOWN AS SALARY INCOME AT THE RATE OF RS . 6,000 PER MONTH AND SOME NOMINAL BU SINESS INCOME OF RS 16, 051 AND INTEREST INCOME OF RS 11,850. IN THE HANDS THE H UF, THE BUSINESS INCOME WAS SHOWN AT RS 80,869 AND INTEREST INCOME AT RS 12,469. WITH THESE ENTRIES AND WITH THE RETURNS OF INCOME, IT WAS PRESUMED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS A LSO SHRI KAILASHCHANDRA MEENA, THAT A L L THE LOOSE ENDS HAD GOT TIED UP, EVEN THOUGH NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENT WAS FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE RETURNS OF INCOME, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT SUCH RETURNS WERE FIELD BY SHRI KAILASHCHANDRA MEENA AND HIS HUF. ITA NO. 125 /AHD/20 12 M /S. JINDAL (INDIA) TEXTILES FOR A.Y. 200 6 - 0 7 - 4 - 6.2 . HOWEVER, IN COURSE O F THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH COMMENCED MUCH LATER, WHEN SHRI KAILASHCHANDRA MEENA WAS SUMMONED U/S.131 OF THE IT ACT AND HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 05 - 12 - 2008, HE HAD PERHAPS FORGOTTEN WHAT HAD BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME; IN FACT HE COUL D NOT BE EXPECTED TO REMEMBER THE ENTRIES, SINCE HE MAY NOT HAVE HIMSELF FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, WHEN CLOSELY QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HE GAVE CERTAIN ANSWERS WHICH WERE IN TOTAL CONTRADICTION TO WHAT HAD BEE N STATED/SHOWN IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME. THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AS REPRODUCED BY THE AO IN PARA 4.1, PAGES 3 - 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT. HE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN DOING BUSINESS IN SAREES AND KIRANA GOODS, WHICH HE CL AIMED TO HAVE CARRIED ON FOR SEVEN TO EIGHT MONTHS AND WOUND IT UP AT THE END OF 2005 (Q.NO.34). INTERESTINGLY, HE COULD NOT STATE AS TO WHAT SORT OF BUSINESS HE DID, WHERE HE HAD PURCHASED HIS GOODS FROM AND TO WHOM HE HAD SOLD. WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT THE PURCHASES WHICH HE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN WORTH RS 14 - 15 LAKHS, HE STATED THAT HE HAD MADE SUCH PAYMENT IN CASH WHICH HE HAD GOT HIS FROM VILLAGE IN - RAJASTHAN. HE CLAIMED TO HAVE GOT THE MONEY FROM HIS FATHER AND HENCE, WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHER E HIS FATHER HAD GOT SUCH SUBSTANTIAL SUM FROM, HE EXPLAINED THAT HE HIMSELF HAD GIVEN IT TO HIM. THE AR HAS ACCUSED THE AO OF MERGING THE ANSWERS TO TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS AND THEREBY MANIPULATING FACTS. THE POINT IS THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO MANIPULATE THE FACTS SINCE THEY WERE CRYSTAL CLEAR. IN FACT, SHRI KAILASHCHANDRA MEENA, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE MANAGER, SHRI PRADEEP AGARWAL AND THE C.A. SHRI DINESH DWIVEDI WAS HIMSELF CONFUSED ABOUT WHERE HE GOT THE CASH FROM? HOW HE HAD CARRIED IT? WHAT HE DID WITH IT? HOW HE BOUGHT AND SOLD THE GOODS? HOW MUCH MONEY HE GOT FROM THE BUSINESS? HOW MUCH MONEY HE GOT FROM THE SALE OF LEFT OVER STOCKS ETC. 6.3 AMIDST ALL SUCH CONFUSION, IF WE ATTEMPT TO SIMPLIFY AND DRAW A CLEAR THREAD, THEN IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GOT APPROX RS 15 LAKHS IN CASH FROM HIS FATHER TO START A BUSINESS IN SURAT OR KI M . WITH THIS MONEY HE MADE THE - PURCHASES OF GOODS FOR A KIRANA SHOP AND FOR HIS CLOTH BUSINESS. IF THAT BE SO, THEN WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF INVE STMENT OF RS . 2 LAKHS IN THE RATION SHOP AND RS 8 LAKHS IN THE CLOTH BUSINESS, AND THE BALANCE OF RS 5 LAKHS KEPT WITH HIM. THESE WERE THE FACTS STATED IN RESPONSE TO Q. NO. 28. IF THE REPLY TO Q. NO 15 WAS NOT IN CONTRADICTION TO REPLY OF Q. NO 28, THEN I T WOULD - MEAN THAT APART FROM THE. SUM OF RS 15 LAKHS WHICH HE UTILISED TO PURCHASE THE GOODS FOR THE CLOTH BUSINESS, HE HAD ALSO MADE INVESTMENT OF.RS 2 LAKHS IN THE RATION SHOP, A FURTHER SUM OF RS 8 ITA NO. 125 /AHD/20 12 M /S. JINDAL (INDIA) TEXTILES FOR A.Y. 200 6 - 0 7 - 5 - LAKHS IN THE CLOTH BUSINESS, AND KEPT THE BALANCE SUM OF RS 5 LAKHS WITH HIM AND SHRI PRADEEP AGARWAL. - . 6.4 SHRI MEENA STATED THAT THE 15 LAKHS CASH THAT HE GOT FROM RAJASTHAN, HE HAD KEPT WITH SHRI PRADEEP AGARWAL UNTIL THE TIME OF OPENING THE BANK ACCOUNTS, AND THAT, SHRI AGARWAL HAD HELPED HIM TO OPEN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. IT IS ALSO INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE CHEQUES DEPOSITED IN THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS WERE ALSO ISSUED BY SHRI PRADEEP AGARWAL, WHO WAS THE SON OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS AND, ALSO THE MANAGER OF THE FIRM. THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP ESTABL ISHED BETWEEN SHRI MEENA AND SHRI AGARWAL FOR SHRI MEENA TO ENTRUST HIM WITH THE SUM OF RS 15 LAKHS. IT IS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED WHY SHRI AGARWAL GAVE HIM THE CHEQUES WHICH HE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY SHRI AGARWAL FROM HIS AC COUNT NO. 2597 IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PROP, OF M/S MANISHA TEXTILES. HE HAD ISSUED TWO CHEQUES OF RS 4 LAKHS EACH TO THE INDIVIDUAL AND TO THE HUF, AND BOTH THE CHEQUES WERE DEPOSITED IN THE RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNT ON 27 - 03 - 2006 AND 28 - 03 - 2006. 6.5 ALSO O F INTEREST IS THE FACT THAT SHRI KAILASHCHANDRA MEENA HAD GIVEN HIS ADDRESS IN BOTH THE RETURNS OF INCOME AS 151, AJANTA SHOPPING CENTRE, RING ROAD, SURAT, WHICH IS THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, WHAT WAS STATED BY SHRI MEENA IN HIS STATE MENT RECORDED ON OATH WAS IN COMPLETE CONTRADICTION TO WHAT HAD BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME. WHEN THIS WAS POINTED OUT TO HIM, HE CLEARLY STATED THAT WHAT WAS STATED IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME WERE NOT CORRECT. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ANSWER .PROVID ED BY SHRI TO Q. NO. 42. IT HAS BEEN ARGUED BY THE AR, BOTH IN ASSESSMENT AND IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THAT NO SUCH STATEMENT HAD BEEN MADE BY S H RI MEENA AND THAT , WHAT HE HAD ACTUALLY, STATED WAS THAT 'WHAT IS STATED IN THE S TATEMENT IS CORRECT AND THAT .HE NEVER SAID THAT WHAT IS STATED : IN THE RETURNS WERE NOT CORRECT. THIS IS A TOTALLY FALSE CLAIM. THE ANSWER GIVEN BY SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA MEENA TO Q.NO. 42 AS REPRODUCED ON PAGE - 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FURTHER REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 'I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT RECORDED TODAY AND UNDERSTOOD THE SAME. MY . C.A. HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE SAME TO ME. I HEREBY CONFIRM IN PRESENCE OF MY C.A. SHRI DINESH DWIVEDI AND MANAGER OF M/S JINDAL (INDIA) TEXTILE, SHRI PRADEEP AGARWAL, WHAT IS STATED ON THE ST ATEMENT IS CORRECT AND WHAT STATED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2006 - 07 IS INCORRECT.' ITA NO. 125 /AHD/20 12 M /S. JINDAL (INDIA) TEXTILES FOR A.Y. 200 6 - 0 7 - 6 - 6.6 THUS, THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MEENA RECORDED BY THE AO U/S 131 OF THE ACT COMPLETELY EXPOSED THE MODUS OPERAND ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE TRANSACTIONS WERE DELIBERATELY STRUCTURED TO GIVE THEM AN APPEARANCE OF AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS. WHEN CONFRONTED BY THE AO, THE MANGER OF THE FIRM AND SHRI MEENA SOUGHT TO WEAVE A STORY WHICH HOWEVER HAD SEVERAL LOOP HOLES AND POOR LOGIC, SINCE IT WAS ONLY A STORY AND NOT THE CORRECT NARRATION OF FACTS. 6.7 IT HAS ALSO BEEN ARGUED WITHOUT ANY EFFECT THAT THE AO DID NOT ASK THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR ANY DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF WHAT HAD BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME OF SHRI M EENA AND HIS HUF, SUCH AS A SALARY CERTIFICATE. THE FACT REMAINS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CLAIM OF HAVING RECEIVED LOANS TOTALLING RS 11,90,000 / - THE ONUS WAS ENTIRELY ON IT TO PRODUCE AND BRING ON RECORD ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT, IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM. IT WAS NOT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF SHRI MEENA, AND THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT INCUMBENT ON THE AO TO ASK THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE SALARY CERTIFICATE OF SHRI KAILASHCHANDRA MEENA . 6.8 THE AR HAS RELIED UPON SEVE RAL CASE - LAWS TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM. HOWEVER, THE FACTS RELATING TO CASH CREDITS ARE DIFFERENT EVERY TIME AND THERE IS NO FIXED FOR MULA WHICH CAN BE APPLIED. THERE CA N BE NO RULE OF LAW TO JUDGE THE GEN UINENESS OF CASH CREDITS, AND THEREFORE, THE RATIO OF A DECIDED CASE CANNOT AP PLIED ACROSS THE BOARD TO ALL CASES OF CASH CREDITS. THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETAILS AND REITERATED IN THE AFORESAID PARAGRAPHS. THE FACTS OF THE CASE CLEARLY ESTABLISH AND CONFIRM THE AO'S FINDING THAT NEITHER SH R I MEENA NOR HIS HUF HAD THE REQUISITE CREDITWORTHINESS TO GIVE LOANS TOTALLING RS . 11,90,000 TO THE ASSESSEE . T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ABSOLUTELY BOGUS. THE EXPLANATION SOUGHT TO BE FURNISHED WAS UNSUBSTANTIATED AND HENCE, WAS F ALSE AND .NOT BONAFIDE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 WAS THEREFORE, CLEARLY ATTRACTED. THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS . 11,90,000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IS THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE REVENUE. THE CASE FILE COMPRISING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, LOWER APPELLATE ORDER AS WELL AS ASSESSEE S WRITTEN ITA NO. 125 /AHD/20 12 M /S. JINDAL (INDIA) TEXTILES FOR A.Y. 200 6 - 0 7 - 7 - SUBMISSION ALONG WITH THE ABOVESTATED DOCUMENTS STANDS PERUSED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THE ASSESSEE S BANK ACCOUNT T HROUGH CHEQUE TRANSFERS. THERE IS ALSO NO ISSUE ABOUT IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS I.E. SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA MEENA (INDIVIDUAL AND HUF). THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITH REGARD TO THESE TWO CREDITORS ARE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD. ALL THESE PAYMENTS ARE DULY RECORDED THEREIN. THE SOLE QUESTION IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS THAT OF GENUINENESS/CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS NARRATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. THE REVENUE STRONGLY REFERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER S FINDINGS. HOWEVER, WE T END TO DISAGREE WITH THE SAME. THE CREDITORS BANK STATEMENTS MAINTAINED WITH THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA BEARING NO. 0521010049760 AND 49757 DULY PROVED THESE LOAN PAYMENTS AS WELL AS REPAYMENTS THEREOF. FOR INSTANCE, THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED SUMS OF RS.4 LACS, RS.1 LAC AND RS.2,90,000/ - ON 27, 28 & 29 TH MARCH, 2006; RESPECTIVELY. THEREAFTER, IT TRANSFERRED SUMS OF RS.4 LACS AND RS.3,90,000/ - BY THE VERY BANKING CHANNEL IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI MEENA/INDIVIDUAL. SIMILARLY, THE HUF S BANK STATEMENT REVEALS THE ASSE SSEE TO HAVE OBTAINED A SUM OF RS.4 LACS ON 28.3.2006 AND REPAID THE SAME ON 28.6.2006 . THE REVENUE IS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THIS FACTUAL POSITION. IT REFERS TO THE COMMON ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THAT OF SHRI MEENA (SUPRA). THERE IS NO QUARREL AB OUT THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE FACT ALSO REMAINS THAT THERE CAN BE ANY NUMBER OF ASSESSEES UNDER A SINGLE ROOF. T HIS ITSELF CANNOT BE A GROUND TO INVOKE SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN ABSENCE OTHER CORROBORATIVE FACTORS . BE THAT AS IT MAY, ONCE CREDITORS IDENTITY, MODE OF PAYMENT AND REPAYMENT, ASSESSEE S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PROVED THE IMPUGNED CREDIT TRANSACTIONS, WE DO NOT FIND APPROPRIATE TO LOOK THROUGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ITA NO. 125 /AHD/20 12 M /S. JINDAL (INDIA) TEXTILES FOR A.Y. 200 6 - 0 7 - 8 - (2014) 45 TAXMANN.COM 151 (GUJ.) PRATAPBHAI VIRJIBHAI P ATEL VS. ITO HAS UPHELD A CO - ORDINATES BENCH ORDER IN ITO VS. COUNTER FORCE ITA NO.1636/AHD/2009 DELETING A SIMILAR ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF REPAYMENT OF THE IMPUGNED CREDITS AND SUPPORTIVE LEDGER ACCOUNT. WE REITERATE THAT FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO D O NOT SEEM DIFFERENT THAN THOSE DECIDED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS. THERE ARE OTHER CASE LAWS ALSO QUOTED NAMELY (2014) 42 TAXMANN.COM 473 (GUJ.) CIT VS. APEX THERM PACKAGING PVT. LTD. AS WELL AS (2012) 21 TAXMANN.COM 159 (GUJ.) CIT VS. RANCHHOD JIVABHAI NAKVA HO LDING THAT WHEN THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR PAN CARDS, COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS, BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS ARE ON RECORD ALONG WITH THEIR CROSS OBJECTIONS, SUCH AN ADDITION DOES NOT HOLD GROUND. WE DRAW SUPPOR T THEREFROM AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 AMOUNTING TO RS.11,90,000/. THE ASSESSEE S SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SUCCEEDS. 6. THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THIS DAY, THE 9 TH JUNE, 201 5 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/ - SD/ - ( N.S. SAINI ) ( S.S. GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 09 / 0 6 / 20 1 5 PRABHAT KR. KES ARWANI , SR. P . S . / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - III, AHMEDABAD ITA NO. 125 /AHD/20 12 M /S. JINDAL (INDIA) TEXTILES FOR A.Y. 200 6 - 0 7 - 9 - 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD