The ITO, Ward-1(1), Surat V. M/s. Blue Bird Texurisers Pvt.Ltd., Surat

ITA 1796/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9057 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K MISHRA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Set aside
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N.PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1796/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 DATE OF HEARING:31.8.09 DRAFTED:3.9.09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), SURAT V/S . BLUE BIRD TEXURISERS PVT. LTD. VARACCHA ROAD, SURAT [PAN:AAACB9637K] (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY :- SHRI C.K. MISHRA, DR ASSESSEE BY:- NONE O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 31-03-2009 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I SURAT, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. OF RS.9,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. (3) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE AB OVE EXTENT. 2. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER THE RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT E-RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,90,098 FILED ON 31-12-2006 BY THE ASSESSEE ,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TWISTING OF POLYESTER YARN, AFTER BEING PROCESSED U /S.143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS TAK EN UP FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT ON 12-10-2007. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVE D UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 12,54,000/- FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS:- NAME OF THE LENDER AMOUNT (RS.) ITA NO.1796/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO WD-1(1) SURAT V. BLUE BIRD TEXURISERS P.LTD. PAGE 2 SHRI GOVINDBHAI JAGUBHAI 109000 SMT. SHALINIBEN P PATEL 195000 SHRI HEMENDRA J MEWADA 100000 SHRI JAIRAMBHAI N JOSHI 200000 SMT. KANTABEN DHIRUBHAI 100000 SMT. MITABEN GONDALIA 250000 SHRI SANGRAMBHAI KHEVABHAI 100000 SHRI TALJABHAI M RAWAL 100000 SHRI DULABHAI K PRAJAPATI 100000 TOTAL 12540 00 2.1 ON PERUSING DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS EE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SOME OF THE LENDERS WAS C REDITED WITH CASH BEFORE ISSUE OF CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO APPEARS TO HAVE A CCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF LOANS BY THE FIRST TWO DEPOSITORS . IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING SEVEN DEPOSITORS, AFTER ANALYZING THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED HIS FINDINGS AS UNDER:- A) IN RESPECT OF LOAN OF SHRI HEMENDRA J MEVADA, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ALLEGED LENDER HAD ISSUED A CHEQUES OF RS.1,00,000/ - ON 16.04.05. IT WAS ALSO SEEN THAT A CASH OF RS.99,000/ WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 15.04.05. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT FURNISHED ANYTHING IN RESPECT OF ASSESSABILITY OF THE ALLEGED LENDER. FURTHER, HIS BALANCE SHEET FOR THE P.E. 31.03.06, P RODUCED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY D OES NOT SHOW ANY SUCH LOAN. AS SUCH, THE GENUINENESS OF THE ALLEGED LOAN AND HIS CREDITWORTHINESS STANDS UN-ESTABLISHED. LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ALLEGED LOAN OF RS.1,00,000/- FROM SHRI HEMENDRA J MEVADA IS NOT AC CEPTED AS GENUINE. B) IN RESPECT OF LOAN OF SHRI JAIRAMBHAI N JOSHI, I T WAS SEEN THAT THE ALLEGED LENDER HAD ISSUED A CHEQUES OF RS.2,00,000/- ON 02. 12.05. THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ENTRY IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,00,000/- ON 29.11.05. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FURNISHED A COPY OF CASH BOOK OF THE SAID PERSON. O N GOING THROUGH THE SAME, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE CASH BOOK OF THE ALLEGED L ENDER HAS RUN INTO NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE ON THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE BANK. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ALLEGED LENDER DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CASH WITH HI M TO DEPOSIT THE SAID AMOUNT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE CASH BOOK OF THE ALLEGED L ENDER IS SEEN TO BE RUNNING INTO NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE YEAR. AS SUCH, HIS CREDITWORTHINESS STANDS UNESTABLISHED. THE SOLE INC OME OF THE ALLEGED LENDER IS DIAMOND LABOUR INCOME OF RS.99,235/- DURING THE YEAR AND HE IS SEEN TO BE FILING HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A TOTAL INCOM E OF RS.103515/-. LOOKING TO ITA NO.1796/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO WD-1(1) SURAT V. BLUE BIRD TEXURISERS P.LTD. PAGE 3 THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ALLEGED LOAN OF RS.2,00, 000/- FROM SHRI JAIRAMBHAI N JOSHI IS NOT ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. C) IN RESPECT OF LOAN OF SMT. KANTABEN DHIRUBHAI, I T WAS SEEN THAT THE ALLEGED LENDER HAD ISSUED A CHEQUE OF RS.1,00,000/- ON 16.0 4.05. IT WAS ALSO SEEN THAT A CASH OF RS.99,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT ON THE SAME DAY. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY FURNISHED A COPY OF CASH BOOK OF THE SAID PERSON. ON GOING THRO UGH THE SAME, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE CASH BOOK DID NOT REFLECT ANY SUC H CASH DEPOSIT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE SAID CASH OF RS.99,000/- IS NOT ROUTED T HROUGH THE BOOKS OF THE ALLEGED LENDER. FURTHER, HER BALANCE SHEET FOR THE P.E. 31.03.06, PRODUCED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY DOES NOT SHOW ANY SUCH LOAN. AS SUCH, THE GENUINENESS OF THE ALLE GED LOAN AND HER CREDITWORTHINESS STANDS UN-ESTABLISHED. THE ALLEGED LENDER IS SEEN TO HAVE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR, DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.100523/- . LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ALLEGED LOA N OF RS.1,00,000/- FROM SMT. KANTABEN DHIRUBHAI IS NOT ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. D) IN RESPECT OF LOAN OF SMT. MITABEN M GONDALIA,IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ALLEGED LENDER HAD ISSUED A CHEQUE OF RS.2,50,000/- ON 13.0 4.05. IT WAS ALSO SEEN THAT A CASH OF RS.2,35,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT ON 12.04.05. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ALLEGED LENDER HAS FILED HIS RETUR N FOR THE YEAR DISCLOSING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,10,447/-. AS SUCH, THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED LENDER STANDS UN-ESTABLISHED. LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ALLEGED LOAN OF RS.2,50,000/- FROM SMT. MITABEN M GONDALIA IS NOT ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. E) IN RESPECT OF LOAN OF SHRI SANGRAMBHAI K RAVAL, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ALLEGED LENDER HAD ISSUED A CHEQUE OF RS.1,00,000/- ON 02.12.05. IT WAS ALSO SEEN THAT A CASH OF RS.1,00,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 29.11.05. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FURNISHED A COPY OF CASH BOOK OF THE SAID PERSON. O N GOING THROUGH THE SAME, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE CASH BOOK IS CREDITED BY S EVERAL AMOUNTS BELOW RS.20,000/- FOR DEPOSIT OF THE SAID CASH OF RS.1,00 ,000/-. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ALLEGED LENDER HAS FILED HIS RETURN FOR THE YEAR DI SCLOSING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,03,655/-. THE CONTENTS OF THE CASH BOOK PROVE THAT THE ALLEGED LENDER IS NOT FINANCIALLY CAPABLE OF LENDING THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. AS SUCH, THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED LENDE R STANDS UN-ESTABLISHED. LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ALLEGED LOAN OF RS.1,00,000/- FROM SHRI SNGRAMBHAI K RAVAL IS NOT ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. F) IN RESPECT OF LOAN OF SHRI TALJABHAI M RAVAL, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ALLEGED LENDER HAD ISSUED A CHEQUE OF RS.1,00,000/- ON 02.12.05. IT WAS ALSO SEEN THAT A CASH OF RS.1,00,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 29.11.05. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FURNISHED A COPY OF CASH BOOK OF THE SAID PERSON. O N GOING THROUGH THE SAME, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE CASH BOOK IS CREDITED BY S EVERAL AMOUNTS BELOW RS.20,000/- FOR DEPOSIT OF THE SAID CASH OF RS.1,00 ,000/-. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ALLEGED LENDER HAS FILED HIS RETURN FOR THE YEAR DI SCLOSING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,03,894/-. THE CONTENTS OF THE CASH BOOK PROVE THAT THE ALLEGED LENDER IS ITA NO.1796/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO WD-1(1) SURAT V. BLUE BIRD TEXURISERS P.LTD. PAGE 4 NOT FINANCIALLY CAPABLE OF LENDING THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. AS SUCH, THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED LENDE R STANDS UN-ESTBLISHED. LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ALLEGED LOAN OF RS.1,00,000/- FROM SHRI TALJABHAI M RAVAL IS NOT ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. G) IN RESPECT OF LOAN OF SHRI DULABHAI K PRAJAPATI, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ALLEGED LENDER HAD ISSUED A CHEQUE OF RS.1,00,000/- ON 16.04.05. IT WAS ALSO SEEN THAT A CASH OF RS.99,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT ON 15.04.05. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FURNISHED A COPY OF BANK BOOK OF THE ALLEGED LENDER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.- 04.05 TO 30.09.05. ON GOING THROUGH THE SAME, IT WA S OBSERVED THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.99,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, AS STAT ED ABOVE, IS NOT RECORDED IN IT. FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ALLEGED LENDER, IT IS SEEN THAT HE HAS DISCLOSED A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,05,742/-, THEREIN. AS SUCH, THE GENUINENESS OF THE ALLEGED LOAN AND HIS CREDITWORTHINESS STANDS UN-ESTABLIISHED. LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ALLEGED LOAN OF RS.1, 00,000/- FROM SHRI DULABHAI K PRAJAPATI IS NOT ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. 2.2 IN THE LIGHT OF HIS AFORESAID FINDINGS, ESPE CIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY OF THE AFORESAID SEVEN LENDERS BEFORE T HE AO, DESPITE ASSURANCE NOR DISCHARGED THE ONUS PLACED ON THE ASSESSEE IN EST ABLISHING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OR GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.9,50,000/- ATTRIBUTED TO THESE SEVEN LENDERS, TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 3. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THEY H AD FILED CONFIRMATION OF THE DEPOSITORS ALONG WITH A COPY OF THEIR INCOME-TAX R ETURN, BANK PASS BOOK AND COPY OF CASH BOOK BEFORE THE AO. MOREOVER, ALL THE UNSECUR ED LOANS EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SMT. MITABEN M GONDALIA HAD BEEN REPAID BY CHEQUES. SINCE ALL THE DEPOSITORS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND HAVE CONFIRMED THE LOANS GIVE N BY CHEQUES, , RELYING UPON DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ROHINI BUILDERS, 256 ITR 360(GUJ), THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR. IN THE LIG HT OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION, CONCLUDING AS UN DER:- 4.3.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED CONFIRMATION, INCOME-TAX RETURN COPY, BANK PASS-BOO K COPY AND CASH BOOK COPY FOR ALL THE DEPOSITORS BEFORE THE A.O. ALL THE DEPOSITORS ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX AND THEIR COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS W ERE FILED. CONFIRMATIONS FROM ALL THE DEPOSITORS WERE FILED. ALL THE PAYMENT S WERE BY CHEQUES. COPIES OF THEIR BANK STATEMENTS WERE FILED. EXCEPT IN ONE CASE IN ALL THE OTHER CASES THE LOANS HAVE BEEN RETURNED BACK BY CHEQUES. THERE FORE, THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITORS, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. IF THE DEPO SITORS HAVE DEPOSITED CASH IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT JUST BEFORE ISSUING THE CHEQU ES OF LOAN AND IF THIS CASH ITA NO.1796/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO WD-1(1) SURAT V. BLUE BIRD TEXURISERS P.LTD. PAGE 5 IS UNEXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE DEPOSITORS THEN THE ADDITION CAN ONLY BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE DEPOSITORS IN RESPECT OF T HE CASH DEPOSITS IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT. ON THESE FACTS NO ADDITION CAN BE MAD E IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. IN THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS ( SUPRA), THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS STATED AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE WAS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALINGS IN LAND. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOANS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS GIVING FULL ADDRESSES, GIR N UMBERS / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS, ETC, OF ALL THE DEPOSITO RS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER ISSUED SUMMONS TO SOME OF THE CREDITORS AND ALSO CONDUCTED INQUIRIES INTO THE GEN UINENESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITIO N OF RS.12,85,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S). ON FURTHER APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL THE TRIBUNAL HELD TH AT THE PHRASEOLOGY OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 19 61, WAS CLEAR, THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS LAID DOWN THAT IN THE ABSE NCE OF A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CRED IT MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, THAT THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE IS NOT IN TERMS OF THE WORDS SHALL BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, THAT THE UNSATISFA CTORINESS OF THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT AND NEED NOT AUTOMATICALLY RES ULT IN DEEMING THE AMOUNT CREDITED INN THE BOOKS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE INITIAL ONUS WHICH LAY ON IT IN TERMS OF SECTIO N 68 BY PROVING THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS BY GIVING THEIR COMPL ETE ADDRESSES, GIR NUMBERS/PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THE COPIE S OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS WHEREVER READILY AVAILABLE, THAT IT HAD ALSO PROVED THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS BY SHOWING THA T THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY ACCOUNTS OF THE CR EDITORS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXPECTED TO PROVE THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THOSE CREDIT ORS BECAUSE UNDER LAW THE ASSESSEE CAN BE ASKED TO PROVE THE SO URCE OF THE CREDITS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT NOT THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE. THUS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND, IN PARTICULAR THE F ACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT DISALLOWED THE INTEREST C LAIMED / PAID IN RELATION TO THESE CREDITS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR EVEN IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS, AND TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCED AT SOURCE OUT OF HE INTEREST PAID / CREDITE D TO THE CREDITORS, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.12, 85,000. ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT: ITA NO.1796/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO WD-1(1) SURAT V. BLUE BIRD TEXURISERS P.LTD. PAGE 6 HELD, THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE NARRATED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE LAW EXPLAINED BY I T, THE APPEAL WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. [THE SUPREME COURT HAS DISMISSED THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THIS JUDGMENT : SEE [2002] 2 54 ITR (ST.) 275- ED.] 4.3.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT AND THE FACT TH AT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED CONFIRMATION, INCOME-TAX RETURN COPY, BANK PASSBOOK COPY AND CASH BOOK COPY FOR ALL THE DEPOSITORS BEFORE THE A.O, ALL THE DEPOSITORS ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX, THEIR COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS WERE FILED, CONFIRMATIONS FROM ALL THE DEPOSITORS WERE FILED, ALL THE PAYMENTS WER E BY CHEQUES, COPIES OF THEIR BANK STATEMENTS WERE FILED AND EXCEPT IN ONE ASSESS EE IN ALL THE OTHER CASES THE LOANS HAVE BEEN RETURNED BACK BY CHEQUES, THE A PPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITORS, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. THE ADDITION MADE IS, T HEREFORE, DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORE SAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF CIT(APPEALS). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHILE RELYING UPON T HE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ROHINI BUI LDERS (SUPRA) CONCLUDED THAT SINCE ALL THE DEPOSITORS ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX, THEI R COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS, CONFIRMATIONS FROM ALL THE DEPOSITORS AND COPIES O F THEIR BANK STATEMENTS WERE FILED WHILE ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE BY CHEQUES AND EXCEPT I N ONE, IN ALL THE OTHER CASES THE LOANS HAVE BEEN RETURNED BY CHEQUES, THE ASSESSEE H AS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITORS AND THEIR CR EDITWORTHINESS AS ALSO GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS .THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL, CONTROVERTING THESE FINDINGS OF FACTS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE LIGHT OF THESE UNDISPUTED FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ESPECIALLY WHEN N O MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US FOR TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, WE HA VE NO HESITATION IN UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).THEREFORE, GROUND NO.1 I N THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 IN THE APPEAL, BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION AND ARE, THEREFORE DISMISSED. ITA NO.1796/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO WD-1(1) SURAT V. BLUE BIRD TEXURISERS P.LTD. PAGE 7 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (A.N.PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 11TH SEPTEMBER,2009 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), SURAT 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, SURAT 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009