P.P.Dass & Sons, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1695/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5309 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence; Assessment record; Onus to prove
• Section: 131; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R] ./I.T.A. NOS.1695, 1696 & 1697/CHNY/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS :1982-83, 1983-84 & 1984-85. M/S. P.P. DASS & SONS, NO.38, COLLEGE ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 006. [PAN AAAHP 0308Q] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NCC-3, CHENNAI. ( !' / APPELLANT) ( #$!' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. D. ANAND, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. B. SAGADEVAN, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 04-04-2018 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-04-2018 % / O R D E R THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED A GAINST AN ORDER DATED 15.03.2016 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)- 4, CHENNAI. 2. ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE R EDONE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON A TRIBUNAL D IRECTION DATED 31.12.1991. THIS TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER TO ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 2 -: CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TO REDO THE ASSESSMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER HAD REDONE THE ASSESSMENTS. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1982-83 IS TAKEN UP FIRST FOR DISPOSAL. 3. FOUR GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE OF W HICH GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL NEEDING NO SPECIFIC ADJUDIC ATION. 4. VIDE ITS GROUND 2, ASSESSEE ASSAILS AN ADDITION OF E90,000/- BEING A LOAN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM ONE MRS. KAMALA N. KATRI, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE TWO CREDITS IN THE NAME OF MRS. KAMALA N. KATRI VIZ E40 ,000/- ON 09.10.1981 AND E50,000/- ON 15.12.1981. AS PER T HE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMATION LE TTER FROM THE SAID CREDITOR. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE WAS THAT THE CONFIRMATION WAS DISBELIEVED FOR THE SOLE REASON TH AT THE CREDITOR HAD SHIFTED TO KOLKOTA AND COULD NOT BE FOUND IN THE A DDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, MRS. KAMALA N. KATRI WAS HERSELF AN ASSESSEE AND DEBTORS SHOWN BY HER IN THE TRIAL BALANCE FILED BY HER ALONGWITH HER RETURN FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 1982-83, HAD THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WITH A BALANCE OF E3 5,000/-. THUS, ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 3 -: ACCORDING TO HIM THE ADDITION AT THE BEST OUGHT HAV E BEEN MADE FOR THE DIFFERENCE ONLY. 6. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SUBM ITTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT NOR THE C REDITWORTHINESS OF MRS. KAMAL N. KATRI . 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE REASON WHY THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED IS CLEAR FROM PARA 8 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- THE CREDIT IN THE NAME OF MRS. KAMALA N. KATRI: T HE ASSESSEE SHOWED CREDITS IN THE NAME OF MRS.KAMALA N . KATRI (L.F.55) AT RS. 40,000/-- AND RS. 50,000/- ON 9.10. 81 AND 15.12.81 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY SUBM ITTED A COPY OF THE ACCOUNT SHOWING THE ADDRESS AS 10, NARS INGA PURAM ST. MADRAS. AS PER THE INCOME- TAX RECORDS OF THE CONCERNED PARTY, THE ADDRESS WAS SHOWN AS 2, AUDIAP PA NAICKEN ST. MADRAS. THE CREDITOR WAS NOT FOUND AT T HE SAID ADDRESS. THE ASSESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE LATER SUBMIT TED THE XEROX COPIES OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS GIVING THE OLD ADDRESS: ADDRESS AS NO.10, NARASINGAPURAM STREET, MADRAS-2 A ND WITH A REMARK THAT 'NOW SHIFTED TO CALCUTTA AND WE SHALL TRY TO FIND THE ADDRESS AND LET YOU KNOW,'. THUS THE ASSES SEE WAS GIVING DIFFERENT ADDRESSES AT DIFFERENT TIME. AS TH IS TRANSACTION APPEARED TO BE DOUBTFUL, THE ASSESSSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE CREDITOR. FOR THIS PURPOSE A NUMBER OF OPPORTUN ITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CREDITOR WAS NE VER PRODUCED. THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITOR WHICH HE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE, EVEN OTHERWISE, THE INCOME-TAX RECORDS OF SMT. KAMA L N. KATRI REVEALED A DIFFERENT PICTURE. THE TOTAL SUNDR Y DEBTORS AS ON 31.3.82 AS PER THE TRIAL BALANCE OF MRS N. KATRI FILED BEFORE ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 4 -: THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES WAS ONLY RS.35,000/-- WH EREAS THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWING THIS AT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 90,00 0/-. THE CREDITOR DID NOT HAVE THE FUNDS TO FINANCE THE ASSE SSEE AND ITS CREDIT WORTHINESS WAS NEVER PROVED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CREDITS OF RS. 90,000/- SHOWN ON 9.10.81 AND 15.12.81 WERE FOUND TO BE UNSUBSTANTIATED AND, HENCE, WAS TREATED AS BOGUS CREDIT ENTRY WHICH WAS ADDED B ACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 31.03.1982 OF MRS. KAMAL N. KATRI, AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, CL EARLY REFLECTED ASSESSEE AS A DEBTOR FOR E35,000/-. HENCE I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE WAS NO MORE THAN E55,000/-. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED A CONFIRMATION WHICH WAS N OT FOUND TO BE BOGUS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, I DIRECT THE LD. AS SESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO E55,000/-. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. VIDE ITS GROUND NUMBER THREE, ASSESSEE ASSAILS ADDI TIONS OF E3,70,456/- AND E1,17,660/- BEING CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNT NO.578 AND BANK ACCOUNT NO.490 WITH BROADWAY BRANCH OF CAN ARA BANK, CHENNAI. 9. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT TWO AD DITIONS WERE MADE FOR CREDITS IN ACCOUNT NO.578 AND 490 WIT H CANARA BANK, BROADWAY BRANCH, MADRAS. AS PER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THESE ACCOUNTS, THOUGH HELD IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 5 -: OPENED NOR OPERATED BY IT. IN ANY CASE, AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, THESE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE FOUND DURI NG A SEARCH PROCEEDINGS ON ONE SHRI.N.K. MOHNOT WHO WAS THE SON OF THE KARTHA OF THE ASSESSEE (HUF). AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE, MATERIALS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI. N.K. MOH NOT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED FOR AN ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT PRESUMPT ION U/S.132(4A) OF THE ACT COULD BE TAKEN ONLY AGAINST THE PERSON WH O WAS SEARCHED, AND NOT FOR FASTENING A LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS A THIRD PARTY. RELYING ON AN ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF THE KARTHA OF THE ASSESSEE NAME LY MRS. MEENA KUMAR MOHNOT VS. ACIT (ITA NOS. 1024 TO 1027/MDS/2 016, DATED 07.06.2017 ), LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT NE ITHER SECTION 132(4A) NOR SECTION 292C OF THE ACT COULD B E USED FOR MAKING AN ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, BASED ON MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH OF ANOTHER PERSON. 10. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT BANK ACCOUNT NOS.578 AND 490 WITH CANARA BANK, BROA DWAY BRANCH, MADRAS WERE OPENED AND OPERATED BY THE ASSESSEE. A CCORDING TO HIM JUST FOR A REASON THAT THESE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE FOU ND DURING THE SEARCH OF PREMISES OF THE SON OF THE KARTHA OF THE ASSESSEE (HUF), THESE COULD NOT BE IGNORED. AS PER THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 6 -: REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE CREDITS IN THESE BANK ACCOUNTS. HENCE ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ADDITIO NS WERE RIGHTLY DONE. 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ASSESSEE HAD ALL A LONG DENIED OPERATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS NO.578 AND 490 WITH CANARA BANK, BROADWAY BRANCH, MADRAS. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO STATED THAT THE SIGNATURE APPEARING IN THE ACCOUNT OPENING FORMS W ERE NOT THAT OF ITS KARTHA. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT TRANSACTIONS IN ACCOUNT NO.57 8 REFLECTED CHEQUES ISSUED TO THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS OF SHRI. N.K. MOHNOT, NAMELY M/S. MONNOT & CO, WHICH WAS SUBJECTED TO A SEARCH U /S.132 OF THE ACT. THIS TRIBUNAL ON A SIMILAR ADDITION MADE IN THE CAS E OF MRS. MEENA KUMAR MOHNOT, WHO IS THE DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF THE PAR TNER OF THE ASSESSEE HUF, IN ITA NOS.1024 TO 1027/MDS/2016, DA TED 07.06.2017, HELD AS UNDER AT PARAGRAPH 7.4 OF ITS ORDER:- 7.4 WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF MR. N.K MOHNOT SON OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS RESIDING IN FLAT NO.65, BIYA COMPLEX PURSAWALKAM HIGH ROAD, MADRAS AND MOHN OT & CO, 1ST FLOOR,NO.16 RAAMAN STREET, MADRAS. THIS IS EVID ENT FROM THE PANCHNAMA DRAWN FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES AND B USINESS PREMISES, WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE IN HER STATEMENT RECORDED IN DECEMBER, 1994 AND STATED THA T SHE IS ORDINARILY RESIDING IN JODHPUR BUT NOT IN MADRAS. T HE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE ADDRESS IN THE INCOME TAX RETURNS NO.38, COLLEGE ROAD, NUNGUMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600006, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FI LING INCOME TAX RETURNS AND ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE WA S NO SEARCH ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 7 -: CARRIED OUT BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IN THE ADD RESS OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE SHE IS RESIDING EITHER IN RAJASTHAN OR THE ADDRESS IN CHENNAI. THE DEPARTMENT ALSO COULD NOT PLACE ANY EV IDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE CALLED FOR THE RECORDS AND THE PANCHNAMA OF THE SEARCHED PREMI SES, AND THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT PLACE ANY RECORD TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH U/S.132 IN THE PREMISES OF NO.38 COLLEGE ROA D, NUNGUMBAKKAM, CHENNAI OR IN RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE IN CHENNAI OR ANY OTHER PLACE CONNECTED WITH THE AS SESSEE. AS STATED EARLIER, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE SEIZED F ROM THE PREMISES OF MR.N.K. MOHNOT AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 132(4A) AND SEC.292C, THE PRESUMPTIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO SHRI N .K, MOHNOT, SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE FOUND IN THE PREMI SES OF MOHNOT. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PROVIS IONS OF SEC.132(4A) AS UNDER: (4A) WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, M ONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THI NG ARE OR IS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE C OURSE OF A SEARCH, IT MAY BE PRESUMED (I) THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, M ONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING BELONG OR BELONGS TO SUCH PERSON; (II) THAT THE CONTENTS OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE ; AND (III) THAT THE SIGNATURE AND EVERY OTHER PART OF S UCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH PURPORT TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF ANY PARTICULAR PERSON OR WHICH MAY R EASONABLY BE ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY, OR TO BE IN THE HAN DWRITING OF, ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, ARE IN THAT PERSON'S HANDWRITING , AND IN THE CASE OF A DOCUMENT STAMPED, EXECUTED OR ATTESTED, THAT I T WAS DULY STAMPED AND EXECUTED OR ATTESTED BY THE PERSON BY W HOM IT PURPORTS TO HAVE BEEN SO EXECUTED OR ATTESTED.] SIMILARLY, SEC.292(C) WHICH IS PARIMATERIA OF SEC.1 32(4A) IN RESPECT OF PRESUMPTIONS OF ASSETS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS , ETC., READS AS UNDER: [PRESUMPTION AS TO ASSETS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ETC. 292C. 15[(1)] WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOC UMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING ARE OR IS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 16[OR SURVEY UNDER SECTI ON 133A], IT MAY, IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, BE PRESUMED ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 8 -: (I) THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MO NEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING BELONG OR BELONGS TO SUCH PERSON; (II) THAT THE CONTENTS OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE; AND (III) THAT THE SIGNATURE AND EVERY OTHER PART OF S UCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH PURPORT TO BE IN THE HAND WRITING OF ANY PARTICULAR PERSON OR WHICH MAY REASONABLY BE ASSUME D TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY, OR TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF, ANY PART ICULAR PERSON, ARE IN THAT PERSON'S HANDWRITING, AND IN THE CASE OF A DOCUMENT STAMPED, EXECUTED OR ATTESTED, THAT IT WAS DULY STAMPED AND EXECUTED OR ATTESTED BY THE PERSON BY WHOM IT PURPORTS TO HAVE BEEN SO EXECUTED OR ATTESTED.] [(2) WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE REQUISITIONING OFFICER IN ACC ORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132A, THEN, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL APPLY AS IF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCU MENTS OR ASSETS WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY FROM THE PERSON R EFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OR CLAUSE (C), AS THE CASE MAY BE, OF SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 132A, HAD BEEN FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF THAT PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UN DER SECTION 132.] BOTH THE SECTIONS 132(4A) AND SEC.292C PRESUME THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE PREMI SES OF A PERSON BELONG TO THE PERSON WHO WAS UNDER SEARCH U/S.132. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO SEARCH CARRIED OUT U/S.132 O F THE ACT, EITHER IN CHENNAI OR IN JODHPUR WHERE SHE IS ORDINARILY RESID ING. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT SHE IS RESID ING WITH HER SON IN FLAT NO.65, PARUSAWALAKKAM, CHENNAI OR ANY OTHER PR EMISES WHERE THE SEARCH U/S.132 WAS CARRIED OUT IN CONNECTION WITH N .K.MOHNOT AND OTHERS. NO STATEMENT U/S.132(4A) WAS RECORDED FROM MR. N.K. MOHNOT WITH REGARD TO THE SEIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFRONTED WITH THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CONTENTS IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND TO MAKE HER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED BOOKS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FLATLY DENIED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D WERE STATED TO BE NOT IN HER HAND WRITING. THE NORMAL COURSE OF ACTION WO ULD BE TO RECORD STATEMENT FROM SHRI N.K. MOHNOT WHO WAS SEARCHED U/ S 132 WITH REGARD TO THE CONTENTS OF THE NOTE BOOKS AND TO CONFRONT T HE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE AND TO DRAW INFERENCE. BUT NO SUCH EXERCISE WAS DONE IN THIS CASE. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS ACTION U/S132 OF INCOME TAX ACT IN T HE ASSESSEE CASE AND EXERCISE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE WITH THE RELE VANT STATEMENTS RECORDED U/S 132(4) OR U/S 131 OF THE IT ACT, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THAT THE PRESUMPTION TO HOLD THAT HE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 132(4A) OF I.T. ACT CA NNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE AO ALSO CAU SED THE ENQUIRIES IN ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 9 -: RESPECT OF THE LOANS AND ADVANCES STATED TO HAVE BE EN MADE TO THE PARTIES AND RECEIVED REPLIES DENYING THE TRANSACTIONS. THER EFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION U/S.1 32(4A) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND DELETED. TH IS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ANIL KHANDELWAL REPORTED IN 93 CCH 0042. THEREFORE THE A SSESSEES APPEAL ON THIS GROUND FOR THE A.YS 1980-81, 82-83, 83-84 A ND 1984-85 ARE ALLOWED. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT PRESUMPTION U/S.132(4A) OF THE ACT COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN ONLY AGAINST PERSON WHO WAS SEARCH ED. THE BANK ACCOUNT NOS. 578 AND 490 WITH CANARA BANK, BROADWAY BRANCH, CHENNAI WERE NOT IMPOUNDED FROM THE PREMISES OF T HE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE HAD ALONG DENIED OPENING OR OPERATING THES E ACCOUNTS. THE ADDITIONS IF AT ALL IT COULD BE MADE, WAS ONLY IN T HE HANDS OF SHRI. N.K. MOHNOT AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. I AM OF THE OPINION TH AT ADDITIONS FOR CREDITS IN THESE BANK ACCOUNTS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH ADDITIONS STANDS DELETED. GR OUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 12. VIDE ITS GROUND NO.4, ASSESSEE ASSAILS ON AN ADDIT ION OF E60,000/- CLAIMED BY IT AS REPAYMENT RECEIVED FROM DEBTORS. 13. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SUBJECT ADDITION COMPRISED OF E10,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS REP AYMENT OF DEBTOR BALANCE BY M/S. BALAJI PLASTIC AND METAL ENTERPRISE S, 110, ENNORE HIGH ROAD, MADRAS-21 AND E50,000/- BY SHRI. R.N. SUBRAMA NIAN, 3, SUNKUMAR AGRAHARAM STREET, MADRAS-2. RELYING ON TH E TRIAL BALANCE ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 10 -: AS ON 31.03.1981, AND STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH ITS RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1981-82, L D. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF E15,000/- W AS SHOWN AS DUE FROM M/S. BALAJI PLASTIC AND METAL ENTERPRISES AND E50,000/- AS DUE FROM SHRI. R.N. SUBRAMANIAN. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE, DISREGARDING THE OPENING BALANCES, SOLELY FO R A REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECORDED RECEIPTS OF THE AMOUNTS ON A DATE WHICH WAS AT VARIANCE WITH WHAT WAS MENTIONED BY THE CONCERNE D DEBTORS. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE HAD BY MISTAKE RECORDED THE REFUND OF LOAN IN ITS BOOKS A FEW DATES PRIOR T O THE ACTUAL RECEIPT. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE AMOUNTS WERE UNDIS PUTEDLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND JUST FOR A MISTAKE IN RECORDI NG THE DATE, THE ADDITION OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN MADE. 14. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT RECEIPTS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM DEBTORS WERE MONTHS PRIOR TO ACTUAL PAYMENTS MADE BY SUCH DEBTORS. HENCE, ACCORD ING TO HIM, THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE. 15. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTE D BY THE REVENUE THAT M/S. BALAJI PLASTIC AND METAL ENTERPRISES HAD PAID E10,000/- AND SHRI. R.N. SUBRAMANIAN HAD PAID E50,000/- TO THE ASSESSE E DURING THE ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 11 -: RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THESE DEBTORS WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE HAD MENTIONE D IN A LETTER TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DATE OF RECEIPT WAS MISTAKENLY RECORDED DUE TO ERRORS COMMITTED BY ITS ACCOUNTANT . THERE IS NO CASE FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE RECEIPTS IF RECORDED ON TH E CORRECT DATES WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN ANY DEFICIT CASH IN THE PRE CEDING MONTHS. THIS BEING SO, IN MY OPINION THE ADDITION OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN MADE JUST FOR AN ERROR COMMITTED IN THE DATE OF RECORDING TH E ACTUAL RECEIPTS FROM THE DEBTORS. THE FACTUM OF RECEIPTS WERE NOT DOUBTED, AND THE YEAR OF RECEIPT WAS ALSO THE SAME. IN SUCH CIRCUMST ANCES, IN MY OPINION, THE ADDITION WAS NOT WARRANTED. SUCH ADD ITION STANDS DELETED. GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16. NOW, I TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1983-84. FIVE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED OF WHI CH GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL, NEEDING NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 17. THOUGH ITS GROUND NO.2, ASSESSEE ASSAILS AN ADDITI ON OF E80,000/- BEING A CREDIT STANDING IN THE NAME OF ON E M/S. HINDUSTHAN ELECTRONICS. 18. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT M/S. HI NDUSTHAN ELECTRONICS WAS THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SMT. HE MA MOHNOT, DAUGHTERIN-LAW OF THE KARTHA OF THE ASSESSEE HUF. AS PER THE LD. ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 12 -: AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, M/S. HINDUSTHAN ELECTRON ICS HAD GIVEN A CONFIRMATION LETTER TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID CONFIRM ATION LETTER GAVE THE PA NUMBER OF SMT. HEMA MOHNOT WHO WAS THE PROPR IETRIX OF M/S. HINDUSTHAN ELECTRONICS. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT CREDIT WORTHINESS OF SMT. H EMA MOHNOT WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDING T O HIM, ASSESSEE HAVING PRODUCED CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTY, THE C REDIT OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. 19. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. HINDUSTHAN ELECTRONICS WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDING TO HIM, BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS OF SMT. HEMA MOHNOT DID NOT HAVE ANY ENTRY FOR ANY LOAN GIV EN BY HER TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE CREDIT WAS A BOGUS ONE AND RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 20. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ASSESSEE HAD ON 05 .04.1982 SHOWN IN ITS BOOKS, A LOAN OF E80,000/- FROM M/S. HINDUSTHAN ELECTRONICS. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID PR OPRIETORSHIP CONCERN WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE BEFORE 01.04.1983 AND THEREF ORE THE CREDIT COULD NOT BE BELIEVED. HOWEVER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS), ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 13 -: HAD IN PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED A COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER. WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- CONFIRMATION LETTER THIS IS TO CONFIRM THAT WE, HINDUSTAN ELECTRONICS, 115, CHOOLAI HIGH ROAD, MADRAS 600 112. (NOW AT NO.16, RAMANAN ROAD, MADRAS 600 079) HAD ADVANCED A LOAN OF E80,000/- (R UPEES EIGHTY THOUSAND ONLY) TO M/S. P.P. DASS & SONS, NO. 16, RAMANAN ROAD, MADRAS 600 079. THE BALANCE TO THEIR DEBIT STANDS AT E80,000/- AS ON 31.03.1983. FURTHER, WE ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX BY INCOME- T AX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, ON HIS P.A. NO.47-055-PX-5462. FOR HINDUSTAN ELECTRONICS, SD/- PROPRIETOR. A READING OF THE ABOVE LETTER CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE CONCERNED CREDITOR HAD GIVEN HER PA NUMBER AND ALSO CONFIRMED THE CRED IT. THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE REVENUE THAT CREDITOR WAS NOT A PERS ON OF MEANS. ONLY REASON WHY CREDIT WAS DENIED WAS THAT THE CREDITOR HAD COME INTO EXISTENCE ONLY ON 01.04.1983. THIS CONCLUSION WAS DRAWN BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON A VERIFICATION OF A CAS H BOOK AND LEDGER FOR THE PERIOD 01.07.1980 TO 31.03.1982 FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI. N.K. MOHNOT, WHICH WERE IMPOUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT . AS PER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THESE BOOKS DID NOT ANYWHERE MENTION M/S. HINDUSTHAN ELECTRONICS. HOWEVER, IN MY OPINION BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS OF A PROPRIETORY CONCERN IS DIFFERENT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE PROPRIETOR. JUST BECAUSE, THE L ATTER DID NOT HAVE ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 14 -: THE NAME OF THE CONCERN WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THE CO NCERN AS SUCH DID NOT EXIST. IN MY OPINION, NO COGENT REASON WAS GIVE N BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR DISBELIEVING THE CREDIT AND CONFIRM ATION. ADDITION OF E80,000/- STANDS DELETED. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED. 21. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS ITS GROU ND NO.3 WHICH IS ON AN ADDITION OF E65,500/-, BEING A LOAN ADVANCED TO M/S. VUMMIDIARS JEWEL CRAFT. GROUND NO.3 IS THEREFORE D ISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 22. VIDE ITS GROUND NO.4, GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE IS ON AN ADDITION OF E80,200/- MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 23. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AD DITION WAS MADE WERE FOR REPAYMENT MADE BY TWO DEBTORS NAM ED M/S. PRAKASH TEXTILE AND M/S. RAJLAKSHMI PAPER COMPANY. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THE TRIAL BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.1982 FILED ALONGWITH ITS RETURN FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1982-83, CLEARLY REFLECTED M/S. PRAKASH TEXTILE AS A DEBTOR FOR E50,200/- AND RAJLAKSHMI PAPER COMPANY AS A DEBTOR FOR E10,000/-. ACCORDING TO HIM, REALIZATION OF DEBTORS, ATLEAST TO THE EXTENT OF E60,200/-, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE, THE ADDITION HAD TO BE DELETED. ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 15 -: 24. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE FOR SUBSTAN TIATING THE CLAIM OF RECEIPTS. AS PER THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE , EVEN ADDRESS OF THE TWO PARTIES WERE NOT MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ADDITIONS WERE RIGHTLY MADE AND CONFIR MED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 25. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. TRIAL BALANCE OF T HE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.1982, FILED ALONGWITH ITS RETURN FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 1982-83 DO SHOW M/S. PRAKASH TEXTILE AS A DEBTOR FOR E50,200/ - AND RAJLAKSHMI PAPER COMPANY AS A DEBTOR FOR E10,000/-. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. WHEN A DEBTOR REPAYS THE LOAN, IT IS NOT AKIN TO A FRESH CREDIT. A PERSON WHO IS RECEIVING, REFUND OF DEBT CANNOT BE FASTENED WITH AN ONUS TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE DE BTOR. ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN E60,200/- AS OPENING DEBTORS IN THE NAME OF M /S. PRAKASH TEXTILE AND RAJLAKSHMI PAPER COMPANY. REPAYMENT TO THIS EXTENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. THEREFORE I REST RICT THE ADDITION TO A SUM OF E20,000/-. ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF E60,2 00/- STANDS DELETED. GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 16 -: 26. VIDE ITS GROUND NO.5, GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ON AN ADDITION MADE FOR DEPOSITS IN ACCOUNT NO.578 OF CA NARA BANK, BROADWAY BRANCH, MADRAS. 27. THERE IS A SIMILAR GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 1982-83. I HAVE ALREADY HELD IN PA RA 11 ABOVE, THAT ADDITION FOR CREDITS IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT COULD NO T HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE VERY SAME REASON S MENTIONED IN THE SAID PARA, I DELETE THE ADDITION. GROUND NO.5 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 28. NOW, I TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 1984-85. ASSESSEE HAS ALTOGETHER RAISED THREE GROUNDS OF WHICH GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL NEEDING NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICA TION. 29. THROUGH ITS GROUNDS 2 & 3, ASSESSEE ASSAILS AN ADDI TION OF E5,99,000/- MADE FOR UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. 30. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS A DDITION COMPRISED OF A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF E5,60,000/- AND INTEREST OF E39,000/-. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E, CREDITS WERE FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:- A M/S. UMA ENTERPRISES E1,41,000 B M/S. D.R. ENTERPRIS ES E1,40,000 C SRI. PRADEEP M. SHAH E1,00,000 D SRI KAMAL H. SHAH E90,000 E SHRI. M. GULAB E89,000 E5,60,000 ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 17 -: CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THESE PARTIES. ACCORDING TO HIM, CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE C ASE OF PRADEEP M. SHAH, KAMAL H SHAH AND M. GULAH GAVE THE FULL ADDR ESS OF THESE PERSONS AS WELL AS THEIR PA NUMBER. DESPITE THIS, AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, THE CREDITS WERE DISBEL IEVED. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE HAD DISCHAR GED ITS ONUS, FOR PROVING THE CREDITS AND THE ADDITIONS WERE UNJUST IFIED. 31. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 32. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. REASON WHY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF E5,9 9,000/- MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, APPEARS AT PARA 19 OF HIS ORDER AND THIS IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 19. REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,60,000/-- + RS. 39,OOO/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN THE NAME OF SIX DIFFE RENT INDIVIDUALS AND CONCERNS AS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS F OUND TO BE REASONABLE AND BONAFIDE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED CONFIRMATI ON LETTERS FROM THESE PARTIES BUT FAILED TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT LEDGER ACCOUNTS AND THEIR COMPLETE ADD RESSES IN THE CASE OF TWO CREDITORS. THE INCOME TAX PARTICULARS WERE A LSO NOT FURNISHED. THE VERIFICATION CARRIED OUT AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES PRO VED THAT NO SUCH PARTIES EXISTED THERE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PR ODUCE THESE SUNDRY CREDITORS BEFORE HIM FOR EXAMINATION BUT THE SAME W AS NOT COMPLIED WITH. THE AR EVEN QUESTIONED THAT UNDER WHICH AUTHO RITY THE AO WAS DIRECTING HIM TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS IN PERSON BE FORE HIM. THE AR EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THESE CREDITORS IN PERSON BEFORE THE ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 18 -: AO. IN THE CASE OF M/S UMA ENTERPRISES AND M/S D.R. ENTERPRISES, IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE PARTIES HAD SHIFT ED TO DELHI. THEIR PRESENT ADDRESS AT DELHI WAS NOT FURNISHED. FROM TH E ABOVE, IT WAS .CLEAR THAT THE ASSESS~E WAS NOT READY TO CO-OPERAT E WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENT REASONS. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AO WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THESE CREDITORS AS BOGUS AND ALSO LACKING THE CREDI TWORTHINESS WHERE THE CREDITORS ACTUALLY EXISTED. EVEN DURING THE APPELLA TE PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY COGENT MATERIAL EVID ENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CONTENTIONS. HENCE, IT IS PROVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED AND ADDITION OF 5,60,000/- + 39,000/- IS SUSTAINED. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MENTIONS T HAT ON VERIFICATION MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE ADDRES S GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PARTIES DID NOT EXI ST. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT WOULD BE APPOSITE TO HAVE A LOOK AT THE CONFIRMA TION LETTERS GIVEN BY PRADEEP M. SHAH, KAMAL H SHAH AND M. GULAB. THESE CONFIRMATION LETTERS ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- PRADEEP M. SHAH :- CONFIRMATION LETTER I PRADEEP M. SHAH KARTHA OF M/S. PRADEEP M. SHAH (H UF) CONFIRM THAT I HAVE MADE A LOAN OF E1,00,000/- (E ONE LAKH ONLY) TO M/S. P.P. DASS & SONS, NO.38, COLLEGE ROAD, MADRAS 600 0 06. THE DEBIT BALANCE OF THEIR ACCOUNT AS ON 31.03.1984 IS E1,00, 000/-. FURTHER, WE ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX ON GIR NO.10212-P BY THE 10 TH INCOME TAX OFFICER, CITY CIRCLE III, MADRAS -6. WE HEREBY UNDERTAKE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO GIVE EVIDENCE TO THE SAID ADVANCE MADE. PLACE:- MADRAS FOR PRADEEP M. SHAH (HUF) DATE : 6.12.91 KATHA. P.A. NO.14, SYDENHAMS ROAD, MADRAS 112. KAMAL H SHAH:- CONFIRMATION LETTER I KAMAL M. SHAH KARTHA OF M/S. KAMAL H. . SHAH (HUF ) CONFIRM THAT I HAVE MADE A LOAN OF E90,000/- (E NINETY THOUSAND ON LY) TO M/S. P.P. ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 19 -: DASS & SONS, NO.38, COLLEGE ROAD, MADRAS 600 006. T HE DEBIT BALANCE OF THEIR ACCOUNT AS ON 31.03.1984 IS E90,00 0/-. FURTHER, WE ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX ON GIR NO.10214-K BY THE 10 TH INCOME TAX OFFICER, CITY CIRCLE III, MADRAS -6. WE HEREBY UNDERTAKE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO GIVE EVIDENCE TO THE SAID ADVANCE MADE. PLACE:- MADRAS FOR KAMAL H. SHAH (HUF) DATE : 6.12.91 KATHA. P.A. NO.14, SYDENHAMS ROAD, MADRAS 112. M. GULAB CONFIRMATION LETTER I M. GULAB CONFIRM THAT I HAVE MADE A LOAN OF E89, 000/- (EEIGHTY NINE THOUSAND ONLY) TO M/S. P.P. DASS & SONS, NO.38 , COLLEGE ROAD, MADRAS 600 006. THE DEBIT BALANCE OF THEIR ACCOUNT AS ON 31.03.1984 IS E89,000/-. I AM ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX ON P.A.N O.47-073-PT- 6593 BY THE 9 TH INCOME TAX OFFICER, CITY CIRCLE VII, MADRAS -34. FURTHER, I HEREBY UNDERTAKE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE IN COME TAX AUTHORITIES TO GIVE EVIDENCE TO THE SAID ADVANCE MA DE. PLACE:- NO. 8, BASIN WATER STREET, MADRAS -79. (M. GULAB) DATE: 6.12.1991 P.A. NO.6, VINAYAKA, MADALY STREET, MADRAS 79. THESE THREE PARTIES HAD GIVEN EITHER GIR NUMBER OR PA NUMBER. THEY HAD ALSO GIVEN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER W ITH WHOM THEY WERE ASSESSED. IN MY OPINION, ASSESSEE HAVING GIVE N THE CONFIRMATIONS, WHICH CARRIED THE NECESSARY DETAILS, HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE CREDITS FROM PRADEEP M. SHAH, KAM AL H. SHAH AND M. GULAB. REVENUE, IF IT DOUBTED THE VERACITY OF TH E CLAIM COULD HAVE EASILY VERIFIED IT FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF T HESE PARTIES. HAVING ITA NOS. 1695 TO 1697/MDS/2016 :- 20 -: CHOSEN NOT TO DO SO, IN MY OPINION, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE CREDITS TO BE NOT GENUINE. HO WEVER, IN THE CASE OF UMA ENTERPRISES AND D.R. ENTERPRISES CONFIRMATI ONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE ANY DETAILS REGARDING THEIR A SSESSMENT CIRCLE. NOR WAS THEIR PAN WERE AVAILABLE. HENCE, THE CONF IRMATION LETTERS IN RESPECT OF UMA ENTERPRISES AND D.R. ENTERPRISES IN MY OPINION WERE RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. I THERE FORE DELETE ADDITION AGGREGATING TO E2,79,000/- PERTAINING TO PRADEEP M. SHAH, KAMAL H. SHAH AND M. GULAB, WHILE SUSTAINING THE BALANCE AD DITION OF 3,20,000/-. GROUNDS 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PART LY ALLOWED. 33. TO SUMMARIZE THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FO R ALL THE THREE YEARS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 17 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED:17TH APRIL, 2018. KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF