Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2021/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91438 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY
• Assessee Lawyers: K R MANJANI
• Keywords: Application of stay; Assessment record; Onus to prove; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 202 1 /DEL /2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 2 - 200 3 SHRI RAJESH BHATIA VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 17, NEAR KAMLA NAGAR, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN AAHPB 6307 N ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 02 .0 7 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .0 7 . 2015 ASSESSEE BY : SRI K.R. MANJANI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SRI VIKRAM SAHAY, SR. D.R. ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - I V , NEW DELHI DATED 26 . 0 2 .201 3 IN APPEAL NO. 137 / 12 - 13 FOR AY 200 2 - 0 3 . ITA NO. 2 02 1 /DEL/201 3 2 2. THE SOLE GROUND RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER: - LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 700,000 / - IN RESPECT OF TWO LOANS. INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT LOANS ARE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, FROM EXISTING ASSESSEE, RETURNED TH ROUGH BANK, CREDITORS ARE NOT RELATED AND THEIR IDENTITY IS NOT IN DOUBT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3,50,000/ - U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) DATED 28.12.2007 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOANS. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 05.02.2010 ENHANCED THE ADDITION TO RS.7,00,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE MATTER BEFORE THE ITAT D ELHI F BENCH AND THE TRIBUNAL BY ORDER DATED 03.11.2010 SET ASIDE THE MATTER AND RESTORE IT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR MAKING DE NOVO ASSESSMENT AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL , THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN CONDUCTED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND PASSED AN EX - PARTE ORDER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.7,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LOANS FROM SMT. RADHA GOYAL AND SHRI OM PRAKASH GUPTA SONS (HUF). 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED AN APPEAL BE FORE THE CIT(A) , WHICH WAS ALSO DISMISSED BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. NOW, THE EMPTY HANDED ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION WITH THIS SECOND APPEAL RAISING SOLE GROUND AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE . ITA NO. 2 02 1 /DEL/201 3 3 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE A RGUMENTS ON BOTH THE SIDES AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATING ITS ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATIONS OF SMT. RADHA GOYAL AND SHRI OM PRAKASH GUPTA SONS (HUF) ALONG WITH THEIR BANK PAYEE SLIP DATED 15.10.2001 & 12.01.2002 RESPECTIVELY AND COPY OF CHEQUE ISSUED BY SHRI OM PRAKASH GUPTA & SONS (HUF) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FI LED CONFIRMATION OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ICICI BANK , WHERE THE CHEQUE OF SAID LOAN, AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED AT THE TIME OF RECEIPT OF LOAN AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED PHOTOCOPIES OF THE ASSESSEE S BANK STATEMENT OF THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD . FROM WHICH IMPUGNED LOANS WERE RETURNED THROUGH CHEQUES TO THE RESPECTIVE CREDITOR S . THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED HIS AFFIDAVIT DATED 17.12.2009 SUPPORTING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH LOANS WERE TAKEN AND RETURNE D TO THE RESPECTIVE CREDITOR S, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN MAKING ADDITION IN THIS REGARD AND THE CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE SAME. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS AND ALL RELEVANT BANK STATEMENT S AND COPIES BEFORE THE AO , BUT THE AO INSIST ED TO PRESENT CREDITORS IN PERSON WHICH WAS NOT POSSIBLE AS SHRI OM PRAKASH GUPTA DIED BEFORE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND SMT. RADHA GOYAL , WAS OLD CANCER LADY DIED IN OCTOBER, 2011. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTE D THAT SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE AO ITA NO. 2 02 1 /DEL/201 3 4 DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING COULD NOT BE COMPLIED BECAUSE BOTH THE CREDITORS WERE DIED AND THE AO WAS PROPERLY INFORMED ABOUT THEIR LEGAL HEIRS WHO COULD BE SUMMON ED FOR THE PURPOSE . THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OU T THAT THE SUMMON ISSUED TO THE LEGAL HEIRS WERE NOT COMPLIED WHICH IS NOT FAULT OF THE ASSESSEE. LD COUNSEL ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THE CONFIRMATION PAN NUMBER AND ADDRESSES OF BOTH THE CREDITORS WERE SUBMITTED AND THE AO COULD HAVE VERIFIED THE AMOUNT O F LOAN FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE CREDITOR RECORD ABOUT VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITION IN THE SIMILAR LINE WHICH WAS DONE DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. 7. LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE VARIOU S DECISIONS OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DWARKADHISH INVESTMENT P. LTD. 330 ITR 298 (DEL.) AND SUBMITTED THAT ONCE ASSESSEE PROVES THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS EITHER BY FURNISHING THEIR PAN NUMBER OF INCOME TA X ASSESSMENT NUMBER AND SHOWS THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION BY SHOWING MONEY IN HIS BOOKS EITHER BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR BY DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, ALLOWING CONFIRMATIONS AND BANK RECORDS THEN THE ONUS TO PROVE THAT THE IMPUGNED LOANS ARE NOT GENUI NE, ONUS SHIFT TO THE REVENUE. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED HIS ONUS BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ENTIRE SUSTAINABLE EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE THRESHOLD WITHOUT MAK ING ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE RESPECTIVE CREDITORS AND ITA NO. 2 02 1 /DEL/201 3 5 PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION , WHICH CANNOT BE HELD AS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 8 . LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS , ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY CONFIRMATION, BANK ACCOUNT AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF IMPUGNED LOANS AND THE SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO THE CREDITORS ON 25.03.2011 AND TO THEIR LEGAL HEIR S ON 14.12.2011 BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE OF THESE SUMMONS. THE LD. DR SUPPORTING THE ACTION OF THE AO SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS SITUATION AO HAD NO OPTION TO MAKE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE RESPECTIVE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) RIGHT IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSION , AT THE VERY OUTSET , WE OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE AD DITION WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: - 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF ID. AR AND PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. I FIND THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE MATTER FOR MAKING DENOVO ASSESSMENT. IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SAME, TH E AO PROVIDED VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES TO THE APPELLANT TO ADDUCE THE PRIMARY EVIDENCES LIKE CONFIRMATION LETTER, BANK STATEMENT, INCOME TAX RETURN AND ALSO ASKED THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE THE DEPOSITORS. HOWEVER, INSPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES, THE APPELLA NT FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS PRIMARY ONUS IN THE FORM OF PRODUCTION OF CONFIRMATION LETTER, BANK STATEMENT OF THE DEPOSITORS, THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS ETC. THE AO ALSO ASKED THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE THE DEPOSITORS WHICH WAS NOT DONE. THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE CREDITORS ON 25.3.2011 AND TO THEIR LEGAL HE IR ON 14.12.2011 WHICH REMAINED UNCOMPLIED. THE AO CONFRONTED THIS FACT TO THE ASSESSEE ON ITA NO. 2 02 1 /DEL/201 3 6 22.12.2011 THAT THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY HIM HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED TO WHICH THE APPELLANT STATED THAT THEY HAVE NO POW ER TO ENFORCE THEIR ATTENDANCE. THIS SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE DEPOSITORS WERE APPELLANT'S WITNESSES AND NOT OF THE AO. SECTION 68 CASTS AN OBLIGATION ON THE ASSESSEE WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH CREDITS TO DISCHARGE THE IDEN TITY OF THE CREDITOR, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THESE 3 REQUIREMENTS ARE CUMULATIVE AND IF ANY OF THESE CONDITIONS IS NOT FULFILLED, THE AMOUNT CAN BE ADDED U/S 68. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, INSPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE AO. THE SUBMISSION THAT THE U NDERSIGNED MAY ISSUE SUMMONS IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AS THE AO HAS ALREADY ISSUED / SUMMONS TO THE DEPOSITORS AS WELL AS THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES WHICH WAS N01J COMPLIED. THE AO HAS ALSO BROUGHT THIS FACT TO THE NOTICE OF THE APPELLANT TO WHICH IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NO POWER TO ENFORCE THE ATTENDANCE. THEREFORE, ASKING THE UNDERSIGNED AGAIN TO ISSUE THE SUMMONS IS A VERY STRANGE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS CA ST UPON HIM U / S 68 TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, CREDIT WORTHINESS OF CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,00,000 / - MADE U/S 68 BY THE AO IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 9 . IN VIEW OF ABOVE, FROM THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE, WE NOTE THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW MAINLY STRESSE D ON THE PERSONAL ATTENDANCE OF THE SAID CREDITORS SMT. RADHA GOYAL AND SHRI OM PRAKASH GUPTA AND THE LD. DR HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT THAT THESE CREDITORS HAD DIED BEFORE COMPLETION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON 29.12.2011. IN THIS SITUATION, WHEN THE N OTICES ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE SAID CREDITORS REMAINED UNCOMPLIED . THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD AT FAULT. IN THIS SITUATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ITA NO. 2 02 1 /DEL/201 3 7 BOUND TO CONSIDER CONFIRMATIONS, COPIES OF THE BANK RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE RECEIVING A ND RETURNING THE LOANS AND ALSO SUBMISSIONS AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE STATING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RECEIPT AND REPAYMENT OF LOANS. 10. WE MAY POINT OUT THAT IN THE CONFIRMATION/CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY RESPECTIVE CREDITORS SMT. RADHA GOYAL AND SHRI OM PRAKASH GUPTA & SONS AVAILABLE AT PAGE S 2 AND 4 OF THE ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK WE CLEARLY OBSERVE THAT THESE CONFIRMATION S ALSO CONTAIN PAN NUMBER , RESPECTIVE WARD DETAIL S OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER S OF THE CREDITORS AND IN THIS SITUATION THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER COULD HAVE VERIFIED OR CROSS CHE CK THESE TRANSACTIONS FROM THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENTS RECORDS OF THE CREDITORS FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE AO AND THIS EXERCISE HAS NOT BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE AO OR BY THE CIT(A). IN THIS SITUATION, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOL D THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IGNORED ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS INCLUDING CONFIRMATION BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWING RECEIPT OF LOAN AS WELL AS REPAYMENT OF LOANS THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS , WHICH WERE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DURING THE SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDING WHICH WERE HELD IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2010 (SUPRA) . 11. F ROM PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE SPECIALLY COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ICICI BANK A VAILABLE AT PAGES 6 & 7 WE CLEARLY OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIPT LOANS O F RS.3,50,000/ - FROM SMT. RADHA GOYAL ON 15.10.2001 AND FROM SHRI OM PRKASH GUPTA HUF ON 15.01.2002 DURING FY ITA NO. 2 02 1 /DEL/201 3 8 2001 - 02. FROM COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI BRANCH AVAILABLE AT PAGE 8 OF THE ASSESSEE PAPER BOOK WE NOTE THAT THE LOAN OF SMT. RADHA GOYAL WAS RETURNED THROUGH CHEQUE NO.403425 , WHICH WAS DEBITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 04.11.2004 AND IN SIMILAR MANNER , THE ASSESSEE ALSO RETURNED LOAN FROM SHRI OM PRAKASH GUPTA THROUGH CHEQUE NO. 403427 , WHICH WAS DEBITED TO THE ASSESSEE S BANK ACCOUNT ON 23.11.2004 . F ROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE SWORN ON 17.12.2009 AVAILABLE AT PAGES 9 AND 10 OF THE ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED DETAILS AND ADDRESSES OF THE RESPECTIVE CREDITOR S BEFORE THE AO. 12 . ON THE BASIS OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE REACH TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IGNORED VITAL SUSTAINABLE AND ACCEPTAB LE EVIDENCE AND ASSESSEE SHOWING GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE RESPECTIVE CREDITORS SMT. RADHA GOYAL AND SHRI OM PRAKASH GUPTA ( HUF ) WHICH WERE REJECTED AT THE THRESHOLD WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW , WITHO UT ANY FURTHER VERIFICATION FROM THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE ALLEGED CREDITORS , WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THEIR PAN NUMBER S, ADDRESSES AND DETAILS OF THEIR ASSESSMENT WARD AND AO DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. IN THIS SITUATION, WE RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOW THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DWARKADHISH INVESTMENT P. LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIP HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS ITA NO. 2 02 1 /DEL/201 3 9 THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS BY EITHER FURNISHING PAN NUMBER OF INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT NUMBER AND OTHER RELEVANT DETAILS SHOWING GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR S AND MONEY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ENTERED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL , THEN THE ONUS OF PRO OF WOULD SHIFT TO THE REVENUE. 13. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN VIEW OF ABOVE NOTED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONTAINS OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE , WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGE HIS ONUS ESTABLISHING GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE RESPECTIVE CREDITORS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY STRESSED UPON THE PERSONAL PRESENCE OF THE CREDITORS WHO HAD DIE D BEFORE COMPLETION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THE AO AND THE CIT(A) HAVE NOT UNDERTAKEN ANY VERIFI CATION OR EXAMINATION FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE RESPECTIVE CREDITORS AS PER DETAILS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONFIRMATION IN THE FORM OF PAN NUMBER AND ASSESSMENT WARD DETAILS. IN THIS SITUATION, ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT DEMOLISHING THE EXPLANATION AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT DISCHARGING THE ONUS WHICH WAS SHIFTED BY THE AO AFTER SUBMISSION OF EXPLANATION AND ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE. 14 . FINALLY , ON TH E LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ON THE BASIS OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION , WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) DURING THE SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDING CANNOT BE ITA NO. 2 02 1 /DEL/201 3 10 HELD AS SUSTAINABLE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LETTERS AND SPRIT OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT SPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE LOANS HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO THE RESPECTIVE CREDITORS THEN THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE HELD AS CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED AND THUS WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY SOLE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 1 5 . IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . STAY APPLICATION NO.21 5 /DEL/2014 FOR AY 200 2 - 0 3 1 6 . SINCE BY THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 200 2 - 0 3 , DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION, THEREFORE, THE STAY APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND WE DISMISS THE SAME. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COU RT ON 24 TH JULY, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( J.S. REDDY ) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24 TH JULY , 2015. AKS/ - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPOND ENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI