Shri Basanti Lal Kothari Through L/H Shri Parag Kothari, UDAIPUR V. ITO, UDAIPUR

ITA 2/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 223314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Keywords: Business income; Source of fund; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 147; 148; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENC H : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 02/JODH/2013 (A.Y. 2003-04) SHRI BASANTI LAL KOTHARI THROUGH VS. ITO, L/H SHRI PARAG KOTHARI, WARD-2(1), C/O SHRI PARAG KOTHARI, UDAIPUR, S/O LATE SHRI BASANTI LAL KOTHARI, 53-B, INSIDE MOCHIWADA, CEMENT GALI, UDAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AJUPK1112G ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHESH GEHLOT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 27/08/2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/09/2013. O R D E R PER N.K.SAINI, A.M THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT (A), UDAIPUR DATED 12/10/2012. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HA VE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN REOPENING THE ASSESSME NT UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 2 2. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 09/12/200 7 IS WHOLLY INCORRECT IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND PASSED IN COMPLETE DI SREGARD OF THE PROVISION OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE SAM E IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS O N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,47,235/- AND GIVING PART RELIEF OF RS. 1,07,765/- ONLY. 2 AT THE FIRST INSTANCE, GROUND NO.3 WAS ARGUED BY T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,47,235/-. 3. FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT ASSE SSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27/11/2004 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 59,911/-. LATER ON, ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THAT, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ORIGINAL RETURN MAY BE TREA TED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES I NCOME FROM RETAIL SHOP OF TEXTILE CLOTH AND DECLARED 5% OF PROFIT ON SALES MADE DURING THE YEAR. HE PRODUCED THE BILL BOOKS AND PURCHASE VOUC HERS IN SUPPORT OF THE SALES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE BUSI NESS INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED TWO PLOTS ON 13/09/2002 FOR A SUM OF RS. 4,90,370/-. HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PLOTS. THE 3 ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF PLOTS, HE HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM SOME PERSONS, RECEIVED MATURITY MONEY FRO M LIC AND SOLD JEWELRY OF HIS WIFE, WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY HER AT TH E TIME OF MARRIAGE. IT WAS STATED THAT INVESTMENT IN THE PLOTS WAS MADE FROM HIS BUSINESS INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD NOT MAINTAINE D ANY WRITTEN RECORD AND, AS MORE THAN 05 YEARS HAD BEEN ELAPSED HE COULD NOT SHOW ALL THE NAMES OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM LOAN HAD BEE N TAKEN. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED SALE BILLS OF SILVER AND GOL D FOR RS. 81,235/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 15,000/- AND WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SOURCE OF INV ESTMENT WAS PROVED ONLY FOR THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT:- LOAN TAKEN AND AFFIDAVIT FILED RS. 87,900 SALE OF JEWELLERY RS. 81,235 REFUND FROM LIC RS. 52,841 BUSINESS INCOME RS. 15,000 TOTAL RS. 2,36,976 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ASSESSEE INVESTED IN THE PLOTS AROUND RS. 4,91,000/-, OUT OF WHICH RS. 2,36,000/- HAD BEEN EXPLAINED AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 2,55,000/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO LD . CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AS INCORPORATED IN PARA 6.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE REPRODUCED VERBATIM AS UNDER:- 3.9. THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED ON DATED 13.09 .2002 ONE, RESIDENTIAL PLOT FROMSMT. USHA AGRAWAL FOR RS. 2,05 ,000/- SITUATED AT BADGOAN - BEDLA ROAD, UDAIPUR. 3.1O. THE APPELLANT MADE THE PAYMENT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2,0 5,000/- TO SMT. USHA AGRAW AL VIDE CHEQUES BEARING NO 165803 AND 165804 OF RS. 1,00,00 0/-AND RS. 1,05,000/- DATED 11-09-2002 RESPECTIVELY DRAWN ON THE UDAIPUR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., UDAIPUR. THE C OPY OF SALE/ PURCHASE DEED AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPEL LANT IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL PLEASE. 3.11. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PURCHASED ON DATED 13- 09-2002 ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PLOT FROM SMT. FOR RS. 2,05,000 /- SITUATED AT BADGOAN - BADLA ROAD, UDAIPUR. 3.12. THE APPELLANT MADE THE PAYMENT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2,05,000/- TO SMT. NIRMALA M. SHAH VIDE CHEQUES BEARING NO 165801 AND 165805 OF RS. 1,00,00 0/-AND RS. 1,05,000/- DATED 11-09-2002 RESPECTIVELY DRAWN ON THE UDAIPUR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., UDAIPUR. THE C OPY OF SALE/ PURCHASE DEED AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPEL LANT IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL PLEASE. 3.13. THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OF RS. 80, 370/-- ON ACCOUNT OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES F OR BOTH THE PLOTS OUT OF HIS ACCUMULATED SAVINGS AND REGULA R INCOME. 3.14. THUS THE APPELLANT PURCHASED BOTH THE AFORESA ID PLOTS FOR RS. 4,90,370/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04. 3.15. THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD THE ABOVE PLOTS FOR RS . 11,90,000/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND DECLARED THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN 'NLL' SHOWING THE COST O F ACQUISITION OF RS. 4,90,370/-ON THE ABOVE PLOTS CLAIMING THE BE NEFIT OF INDEXATION ON THE PURCHASE COST OF PLOTS AND EXEMPT ION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 5 3.16. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DOUBTED THE GENUINE NESS OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PLOTS OF RS. 4,90,37 0/- AND MADE THE ADDITION OF TRADING PROFIT OF RS. 2,55,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPE LLANT HAS MADE THE INVESTMENT IN THE ABOVE PLOTS OUT OF HIS U NDISCLOSED INCOME. 3.17. THE APPELLANT VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT HE HAS MADE THE INVESTMENT IN THE PLOTS BY EXPLAINED AND E STABLISHED SOURCES OF INCOME THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THERE WAS NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN HIS CASE. 3.18. THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED CASH OF RS, 1,24,5 00/- FROM RAISING THE UNSECURED LOANS THAT HAVE BEEN DEPOSITE D IN THE APPELLANT'S CURRENT BANK-ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT I N PIECEMEAL OF RS. 20,000/- EACH WITH THE UDAIPUR URBAN COOPERA TIVE BANK LTD., AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF SOME PART OF HI S REGULAR INCOME. THE COPIES OF AFFIDAVITS ARE ENCLOSED. 3.19. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,25,000/- FROM HIS SON SHRI VINAY KOTHARI THAT HAV E ALSO BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE APPELLANTS CURRENT BANK ACCOUNT ( RELEVANT CERTIFICATE IS ENCLOSED). 3.20. THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED THE CHEQUES BEARIN G NO. 0073241 AND 00732610 OF RS. 30,000/- FROM SMT. KANT A KOTHARI AND SHRI PARAG KOTHARI RESPECTIVELY DRAWN O N THE UDAIPUR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LID., WHICH WERE DEP OSITED IN THE APPELLANT'S CURRENT BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE UDAIP UR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. 3.21. THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO RECEIVED THE CASH OF N EAR ABOUT RS. 81, 000/- FROM SALE OF GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLER Y WHICH HAVE ALSO BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE APPELLANT'S CURRENT BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE UDAIPUR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. (RELEV ANT BILLS AND OTHER EVIDENCES ARE ENCLOSED)' 3.22. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO TRANSFERRED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 68,000/- FROM HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT (COPY ENCLOSE D) TO HIS CURRENT WITH THE UDAIPUR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD . 3.23. THE APPELLANT WAS ENGAGED IN CLOTH BUSINESS S INCE LAST THIRTY FIVE YEARS AND HE HAS ADEQUATE ACCUMULATED S AVINGS WITH HIM. THE BALANCE PAYMENT OF RS. 61,870/- HAS B EEN 6 MADE OUT OF APPELLANT'S ACCUMULATED SAVINGS AND REG ULAR INCOME.' 3.24. THUS THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OF CO ST OF ACQUISITION OF PLOTS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND OU T OF EXPLAINED AND ESTABLISHED SOURCES OF INCOME AND THE RE IS NO SCOPE FOR ASSESSMENT OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN PUR CHASING THE ABOVE PLOTS. 3.25. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE A PPELLANT IS NOT READY TO PROVIDE THE NAME AND EVIDENCE OF INVES TMENT IN THE PLOTS AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED A SUM OF RS. 2,55,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE APP ELLANT FOR INVESTMENT IN PLOTS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 3.26 THE APPELLANT VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT H E HAS PLACED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ON RECORD WHIC H CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE INVESTMENT IN PLOTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT OUT OF EXPLAINED AND ESTABLISHED SOURCES OF INCOME AND NOT FROM THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 3.27. THE OBSERVATION AND/OR FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE INFERENCE AND CONCLUSION DRAWN ON T HE BASIS OF SUCH FINDINGS BY HIM THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE TH E INVESTMENT IN PLOTS OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IS T OTALLY INCORRECT AND PATENTLY ERRONEOUS, BASED ON MERE ASS UMPTION AND PRESUMPTION SURMISES AND CONJECTURES, PURE GUES S AND DOUBTS AND SUSPICIONS, IRRELEVANT AND EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATION, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AND HYPOTHETICA L GROUNDS AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF INVESTMENT OUT OF U NDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 2,55,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS UNWARRANTED AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3.28 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 2,55,000/-TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS TRADING ADDITION WITHOUT ANY TA NGIBLE GROUNDS AND CONCRETE CLINCHING EVIDENCE OF DEFINITE LEGAL CHARACTER ON RECORD BUT MERELY ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION AND, THEREFORE, SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DE LETED. 3.29. FOR THE VARIOUS GROUNDS OF DEFENCE STATED ABO VE, THE APPELLANT VERY HUMBLY PRAYS THAT HE HAS MADE THE INVESTMENTS IN PLOTS OUT OF HIS EXPLAINED AND ESTAB LISHED 7 SOURCES, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED INV ESTMENT AND/OR TRADING ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS PATENTLY INCORRECT AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 3.30. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS OF DEFENCE, THE APPELLANT VERY HUMBLY PRAYS TO YOUR HONOUR TO: I) QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 09/12/2007 AS BEIN G AB INITIO, VOID, ILLEGAL AND/OR IN OPERATIVE. II) DELETE THE ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AND/O R TRADING ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS B EING ARBITRARY, FICTITIOUS AND ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITI O. III) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS MAY BE DEEM ED FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE OF THE PL OTS HAD BEEN MADE THROUGH THE BANK CURRENT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AN D SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT HAD BEEN EXPLAINED AS UNDE R:- UNSECURED LOAN RS. 1. SHRI HIMMAT SINGH MANDOT 18,500 00 2. SHRI JEEVAN SINGH KOTARI 18,500 00 3. SHRI KRISHNA KANT MANDOT 18,000 00 4. SHRI RAMESH JI MANDOT 18,400 00 5. SHRI RAVIJI KOTHARI 19,000 00 6. SMT. SHANTI DEVI MANDOT 17,500 00 7. SHRI VINAY KUMAR KOTHARI 15,000 - 00 ---------------- TOTAL 1,24,900 00 ---------------- 8 HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A LOAN OF RS. 1,25,000/- FROM HIS SON, BUT ASSESSING OFFIC ER ACCEPTED A LOAN OF RS. 87,900/- IN THE CASES WHERE THE AFFIDAVITS AND CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITORS WERE FILED. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED RS. 81,235/- INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF P LOTS FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF JEWELLERY AND RS. 52,841/-, REFUND RECE IVED FROM LIC AND RS. 15,000 /- AS BUSINESS INCOME. LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AFFIDAVITS FROM ALL THE CREDITOR S EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SRI VINAY KOTHARI FOR A SUM OF RS. 15,000/-, THEREF ORE, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASC ERTAIN THAT WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR TREATING THE LOAN OF RS. 87,900/- AS GENUINE. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY S PECIFIC FINDING, THE CREDIT CLAIMED AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,09,000/- FOR WHIC H CONFIRMATIONS/ AFFIDAVITS HAD BEEN FILED WAS TO BE HELD AS GENUINE AND INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF PLOTS. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO STATED THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PLOTS OUT OF SALE PROCEED OF JEWELLERY AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,16,235/- AS UNDER:- 1. BILL DATED 14/09/2001 OF PRATAP JEWELLERS R S. 47,995 (NET WEIGHT 6666) 2. BILL DATED 05/09/2002 OF PRATAP JEWELLERS RS. 33,240 (NET WEIGHT 70.725) 3. M/S. MOHANLAL ROSHANLAL JI BHANDSALI RS. 35,000 --------------- RS. 1,16,235 --------------- 9 LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR NOT TREATING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 35,000/-, WHICH HAD ALSO BEEN SUPPORTED BY BILLS. HE, THEREF ORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC FINDING BY ASSESSING OFFICER, CONSIDER ED THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 1,16,235/- AS GENUINE, WHICH WAS INVESTED IN PU RCHASE OF PLOTS. LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED A SUM OF RS. 68,000/-, WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED FROM HIS SAVINGS BA NK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED AT UDAIPUR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. T O HIS CURRENT ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT IN THE P LOTS. LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ABOVE AMOUNT WAS VERIFIABLE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS UTILIZED TO PURCHASE THE PLOTS . HE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED THIS AMOUNT ALSO AS GENUINE. 6. AS REGARDS TO THE SAVINGS FROM THE BUSINESS ESTIMA TED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 15,000/-, LD. CIT(A) OBSER VED THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS FROM THE LAST 35 YEARS AND CLAIMED TO HAVE INVESTED RS. 61,870/- FROM ACCUMULATED INCOME. HOWEVER, LD. CIT (A) CONSIDERED ONLY RS. 50,000/- ON ESTIMATE BASIS AS THE SAVINGS FROM THE BUSINESS INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE SOURCE OF RS. 3,43,235/- WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS PER THE FOLLOWING DETAILS:- 10 ` RS. PS. 1. LOANS 1,09,000 - 00 2. SALE PROCEEDS OF JEWELLERY 1,16,23 5 00 3. AMOUNT TRANSFERRED FROM S.B. ACCOUNT TO CURRENT ACCOUNT 68,000 00 4. ACCUMULATED SAVINGS 50,000 00 -------------------- 3,43,2 35 00 -------------------- IN THIS MANNER, LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,47,135/- (RS. 490370 RS. 343235), HOWEVER, HE DID NOT ACCE PT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,25,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS S ON, ALTHOUGH THE CONFIRMATION WAS FILED IN THIS REGARD FOR THE REASO N THAT THE SAME WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY APPLICATION U/S 46(A) OF THE RULES. NOW THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SU BMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER ASSESSING OFFICER NOR LD. CIT(A) HAD GIVEN ANY REAS ON FOR REJECTING THE LOAN OF RS. 1,25,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M HIS SON. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT CONFIRMATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, BUT THE SAME WAS NOT ACCEPTED WITHOUT ANY COGENT REASON . IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED RS. 61,870/- OU T OF ACCUMULATED INCOME FROM CLOTH BUSINESS, BUT THE LD. CIT(A) ONLY ACCEPTED RS. 11 50,000/- AND NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR REJECTING CLA IM FOR REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 11,870/-. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED T HAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE CHEQUES BEARING NOS. 0073241 & 0073261 0 OF RS. 30,000/- FROM SMT. KANTA KOTHARI AND SHRI PARAG KOTHARI RESP ECTIVELY DRAWN ON UDAIPUR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., WHICH WERE DEP OSITED IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON IN NOT ACCEPTING THE SAME. IT WAS STATED THAT IF THE BENEFIT OF ABOVE SAID LOANS AND INCOME FROM BUSINESS IS TO BE GIVEN, NO ADDITION WAS CALLE D FOR. 8. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDE RED ONLY RS. 3,43,235/- (DETAILS OF WHICH IS GIVEN IN THE FORMER PART OF TH IS ORDER) AS SOURCE, WHICH WAS UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS. HOWEVER , HE DID NOT ACCEPT LOAN OF RS. 1,25,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M HIS SON FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS ONLY ON TECHNICAL GROUND THAT AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID LOAN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS SON, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED 12 MERELY ON TECHNICALITY. SIMILARLY, NEITHER ASSESSI NG OFFICER NOR LD. CIT(A) HAS BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 30,000/- EACH RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES FROM SMT. KA NTA KOTHARI AND SHRI PARAG KOTHARI WAS NOT GENUINE, IF THE AFORESAI D LOANS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN AMOUNT UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE O F PLOTS IN QUESTION, THEN NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR. WE, THEREFORE, BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,47,235/- WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DELETED. SINCE , THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED AND THE APPE AL IS ALLOWED ON MERIT, NO FINDINGS ARE GIVEN ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 03 RD SEPTEMBER, 2013) (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 03 RD SEPTEMBER, 2013. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD.CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, JODHPUR.