Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2188 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
8 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
26-06-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
D
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
04-10-2018
Judgement Text
, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2013-14 AANYA DEVELOPERS SURVEY NO.326/1, BLOCK NO.450 OPP: AAROHI HOMES, BOPAL AHMEDABAD 380 015. PAN : AAOFA 8827 H. VS. DCIT, CENT.CIR.2(2) AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.C. PIPARA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 18/06/2019 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26/06/2019 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-12, AHMEDABAD DATED 10.7.2018 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2013-14. 2. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.1,79,29,883/- UN DER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND INTEREST OF RS.3,01 ,277/- ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PAID ON SUCH NON-GENUINE UNSECURED LOA NS. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 2 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AND CIVIL CONT RACTOR. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.9.2013 DECLARING L OSS OF RS.6,61,964/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECT ED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSU ED ON 8.9.2014 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. ON SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS, IT REVEALED TO THE AO THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD RECEIVED UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.2,24,89,445/-. IN OR DER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE ABOVE LOANS, HE RAISED A QUE RY BEARING NO.5 IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) ISSUED ON 1 1.6.2015. THE AO HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH NAMES AND A DDRESSES OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM FRESH UNSECURED LOANS/DEPOSIT S WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT. THE LD.AO HAS ALSO DIRECTED TO SU BMIT COPIES PANS, PHOTO-COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ITRS, CONFIR MATION, BALANCE SHEETS AND EVIDENCE SUPPORTING CREDIT-WORTH INESS OF DEPOSITS/LENDERS IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS. AC CORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED PARTIAL DETAILS AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT 50 CREDITORS HAD FILED THEIR RETURN WITHIN THE RANGE OF RS.1,90,000/- TO RS.2,25 ,000/-; WHEREAS ALL OF THEM GIVEN LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE RANGE OF RS.2,00,000/- TO RS.5,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE THERE AFTER SUBMITTED FURTHER DETAILS AND ULTIMATELY, THE LD.AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO 57 DEPOSITORS RE QUESTING THEM TO SUBMIT DETAILS OF BUSINESS THEY ARE CARRYING ON; COPY OF RETURNS; SPECIMEN COPY OF SUCH QUERIES HAS BEEN REP RODUCED BY THE AO. THE LD.AO THEREAFTER MADE AN ANALYSIS OF E VIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HIS OBSERVATIO N. HE COMPILED SUCH DETAILS IN TABULAR FORM AND ANNEXED T HOSE FINDING ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 3 WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ANNEXURE-A. WE TAKE N OTE OF THIS ANNEXURE A-1, WHICH READS AS UNDER: ANNEXURE: A S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS 1 AMRIT BHAI PATEL 195600 300000 3773 I AM DOING TR ADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO MULJIBHAI V CHAUDHARI EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK ON 12/06/2012. THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF MULJIBHAI V CHUADHARY WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT MULJIBHAI V CHAUDHARI HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 2 ARIHANT EXPORTS 309000 550000 6818 IN THIS CASE, NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT RETURNED UNSERVED. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 04-01-2016, WAS REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT FOR VIDE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT BUT NOTHING WAS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF LOAN TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 3 ASHABEN PRAVEEN BHAI KUBADIYA 196440 250000 3144 I AM DOING TRADING OF GOODS AND HAVE NO PROOFS FOR SAME. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO HITESHBHAI H SHAH EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HER. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF HITESHBHAI H SHAH WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT HITESHBHAI H SHAH HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 4 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS REPAID THE SAME TO HER DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HER TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 4 ASHWINBHAI NAGJIBHAI VEKARIYA 193750 500000 8137 I AM DOING GENERAL TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. AMOUNT IN RECEIVED BY ME IN PURSUANCE OF SALE DONE BY ME TO DIPAK GEMS. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OR STOCK OF DIAMOND WITH THE DEPOSITOR WHICH WAS STATED TO BE SOLD TO DIPAK GEMS. MERE STATING THAT SALE WAS DONE TO DIPAK GEMS AND SALE PROCEED WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNSECURED LOAN IS A SELF-SERVING STATEMENT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, WHEN THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON FROM RESIDENCE AND NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OR STOCK WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 5 BHARATBHAI SHANTILAL DOSHI 196290 300000 2219 I AM UNDER BUSINESS OF TRADING OF DIAMONDS AND AS THIS BUSINESS IS CARRIED FROM MY RESIDENCE. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO MANSUKHBHAI K. PATEL EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF MANSUKHBHAI K. PATEL WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT MANSUKHBHAI K. PATEL HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 5 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 6 BIRENBHAI A SANGHVI 189970 600000 9173 I AM DOING BUSINESS OF RETAILER OF DIAMOND OPERATING FROM MY HOUSE, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC BUSINESS ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF BUSINESS CARRIED. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO CHETAN B. SHAH EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF CHETAN BHRATBHAI SHAH WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT CHETAN BHRATBHAI SHAH HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 7 CHANDRIKABEN K DOSHI 193520 250000 7027 THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HER. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF NILESHBHAI N. PATEL WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT NILESHBHAI N. PATEL HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HER DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 8 CHETANBHAI J SHAH 191590 400000 5030 IN THIS CASE, NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT RETURNED UNSERVED. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 04-01-2016, WAS REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT FOR VIDE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT BUT NOTHING WAS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF LOAN TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 6 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 9 CHINTAN P DOSHI 196910 200000 5671 I AM DOING TRA DING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO PRAKASH A. DOSHI EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF PRAKASH A. DOSHI WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT PRAKASH A. DOSHI HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 10 DARSHNABEN P SHAH 196790 250000 3576 I AM DOING RETAIL TRADING FROM MY HOUSE, I HAVE NO ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF BUSINESS CARRIED. I HAVE GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE FROM SALE PROCEEDS FROM M/S. RAJ & SONS AND SEJAL R. MEHTA THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HER. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OR STOCK WITH THE DEPOSITOR WHICH WAS STATED TO BE SOLD TO M/S. RAJ & SONS AND SEJAL R MEHTA. IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT WHAT WAS SOLD IS NOT AT ALL MENTIONED BY THE DEPOSITOR. MERE STATING THAT SALE WAS DONE TO M/S. RAJ & SONS AND SEJAL R MEHTA AND SALE PROCEED WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNSECURED LOAN IS A SELF-SERVING STATEMENT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, WHEN THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON FROM RESIDENCE AND NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OR STOCK WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 11 DEVESHBHAI M 195840 500000 7151 I AM DOING GENER AL THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 7 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS SHAH TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. AMOUNT IN RECEIVED BY ME IN PURSUANCE OF SALE DONE BY ME TO M/S. RAJ & SONS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OR STOCK OF DIAMOND WITH THE DEPOSITOR WHICH WAS STATED TO BE SOLD TO M/S. RAJ & SONS. MERE STATING THAT SALE WAS DONE TO M/S. RAJ & SONS AND SALE PROCEED WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNSECURED LOAN IS A SELF-SERVING STATEMENT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, WHEN THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON FROM RESIDENCE AND NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OR STOCK WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 12 GAUTAM JEMS 197950 250000 3699 I HAVE DONE BUSIN ESS OF RETAILER OF DIAMOND OPERATING AT MY HOUSE, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC BUSINESS ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF BUSINESS CARRIED. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO M/S. RADHE CORPORATION EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HER. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF M/S. RADHE CORPORATION WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT M/S. RADHE CORPORATION HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HER TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 13 GHANSHYAMBHAI G ROKHALIYA 211550 250000 3144 NO REPLY AS REQUIRED VIDE NOTIC E U/S 133(6) WAS GIVEN. THE EARLIER SUBMISSION FILED WAS AGAIN SENT. SINCE, NO EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS.250000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS GIVEN BY THE DEPOSITOR WHICH WAS LATER ON GIVEN BY THE DEPOSITOR TO THE ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 8 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS ASSESSEE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 14 GHANSHYAMBHAI V KABARIYA 215000 500000 14178 WE HAVE RECEIVED PAYMENT OF RS.5,00,000/- ON 06- 12-2012 OF POLISHED DIAMOND SALES FROM M/S. MAHASHAKTI GEMS THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OR STOCK OF POLISHED DIAMOND WITH THE DEPOSITOR WHICH WAS STATED TO BE SOLD TO M/S. MAHASHAKTI GEMS. MERE STATING THAT SALE WAS DONE TO M/S. MAHASHAKTI GEMS AND SALE PROCEED WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNSECURED LOAN IS A SELF-SERVING STATEMENT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, WHEN THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON FROM RESIDENCE AND NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OR STOCK WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 15 GIRISHBHAI L VORA 191880 200000 2712 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I AM SAYING THAT OF RS.200000 RECEIVED BY ME IS IN PURCHASE OF LOAN TAKEN BY ME FROM MITTAL V. VORA THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF MITTAL V. VORA WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE DEPOSITOR FROM MITTAL V. VORA AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF MITTAL V. VORA WHO HAD GIVEN TO THE DEPOSITOR. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 16 GITABEN JAGABHAI PATEL 196980 250000 1849 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 9 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I AM SAYING THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ME IS IN PURSUANCE OF SALE DONE BY ME TO MANSUKHBHAI K BHALALA. BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HER. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OR STOCK WITH THE DEPOSITOR WHICH WAS STATED TO BE SOLD MANSUKHBHAI K BHALALA. IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT WHAT WAS SOLD IS NOT AT ALL MENTIONED BY THE DEPOSITOR. MERE STATING THAT SALE WAS DONE TO MANSUKHBHAI K BHALALA AND SALE PROCEED WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNSECURED LOAN IS A SELF-SERVING STATEMENT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, WHEN THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON FROM RESIDENCE AND NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OR STOCK WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 17 GOMTIBEN JIVRAJBHAI CHAUDHARY 196810 250000 7027 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO JIVRAJBHAI S. CHAUDHARY EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK ON 06-12-2012 AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF JIVRAJBHAI S. CHAUDHARY WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT JIVRAJBHAI S. CHAUDHARY HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HER TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 18 GOMTIBEN BHURABHAI PATEL 197170 150000 999 IN THIS CASE, NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT RETURNED UNSERVED. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 04-01-2016, WAS REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 10 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS FOR VIDE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT BUT NOTHING WAS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF LOAD TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 19 HARJIBHAI DEVARAMBHAI PATEL 195700 200000 2712 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO PRITIBEN J. SHAH EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK ON 02- 02-2013 AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF PRITIBEN J. SHAH WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT PRITIBEN J. SHAH HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 20 HETALBEN MEHULBHAI DHARU 195600 525000 7767 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I HAVE GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS FROM VITRAGBHAI DHIRAJLAL DHARU THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OR STOCK WITH THE DEPOSITOR WHICH WAS STATED TO BE SOLD VIRAGBHAI D DHARU. IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT WHAT WAS SOLD IS NOT AT ALL MENTIONED BY THE DEPOSITOR. MERE STATING THAT SALE WAS DONE TO VITRAGBHAI D DHARUAND SALE PROCEED WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNSECURED LOAN IS A SELF-SERVING STATEMENT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, WHEN THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON FROM RESIDENCE AND NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OR STOCK WAS GIVEN. IT IS VERY RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT HETALBEN DHARU DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 11 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS 3,00,000/- EACH ON 11-12-2012 & 07-01-2013AND THEN, CHEQUE WAS ISSUED TO VITRAGBHAI D. DHARU. THEREAFTER, VITRAGBHAI D. DHARU ISSUED CHEQUE OF RS.5,25,000/- TO HETALBEN DHARU. THIS CLEARLY PROVES THAT THERE WAS NO SALE TRANSACTION AND CASH WAS DEPOSITED AND ROTATED TO THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT HETALBEN DHARU STATED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED SALE PROCEEDS FROM VITRAGBHAI DHARU, WHEREAS VITRAGBHAI DHARU STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED LOAN FROM HER AND GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS A CLEAR CONTRADICTION IN THE STATEMENT OF BOTH THE DEPOSITOR WHO HAD GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 21 JAGDISHBHAI D PADHIYAR 199220 250000 3575 I HAVE DONE BUSINESS OF DIAMOND RETAIL TRADING. I HAVE NO ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF BUSINESS CARRIED AS IT IS NOT FIXED. I HAVE GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS FROM M/S. SUNDHA GEMS. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OR STOCK WITH THE DEPOSITOR WHICH WAS STATED TO BE SOLD TO M/S. SUNDHA GEMS. IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT WHAT WAS SOLD IS NOT AT ALL MENTIONED BY THE DEPOSITOR. MERE STATING THAT SALE WAS DONE TO M/S. SUNDHA GEMS AND SALE PROCEED WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNSECURED LOAN IS A SELF-SERVING STATEMENT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, WHEN THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON FROM RESIDENCE AND NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OR STOCK WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 12 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS 22 JAYSHREEBEN K SANGHVI 206240 550000 8137 I AM DOING BUSINESS OF RETAILER AND OPERATING AT MY HOUSE. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC BUSINESS ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF BUSINESS CARRIED. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO M/S. RADHE CORPORATION EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HER. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF M/S RADHE CORPORATION WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT M/S RADHE CORPORATION HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HER TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 23 JITENDRABHAI HIMATLAL SHAH 193450 300000 8507 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO RUTIKABEN A. SHAH EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK ON 06.12.2012 AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF RUTIKABEN A. SHAH WAS GIVEN WHICH WOULD COULD JUSTIFY THAT RUTIKABEN A. SHAH HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 24 KIRANBEN DILIPBHAI SHAH 195880 300000 8359 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO ASHOKBHAI B. DOSHI HUF EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK ON 08.12.2012 AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEEE THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF ASHOKBHAI B. DOSHI HUF WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT ASHOKBHAI B. DOSHI ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 13 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS AS LOAN. HUF HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HER TO THE ASSESSEEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 25 LALJIBHAI DEVRAMBHAI PATEL 193160 350000 9407 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I AM SAYING THAT OF RS. 350000 RECEIVED BY ME IS IN PURSUANCE OF LOAN TAKEN BY ME FROM RITESH R. SALIYA & RAMJIBHAI G. PATEL. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT RITESH R. SALIYA & RAMJIBHAI G. PATEL WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE DEPOSITOR FROM RITESH R. SALIYA & RAMJIBHAI G. PATEL AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF RITESH R. SALIYA & RAMJIBHAI G. PATEL WHO HAD GIVEN LOAN TO THE DEPOSITOR. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 26 MAHENDRA DHIRUBHAI PIPALYA 197410 300000 8063 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I AM SAYING THAT OF RS 300000 RECEIVED BY ME ON 12.12.2012 IS IN PURSUANCE OF LOAN TAKEN BY ME FROM NITABEN K. PIPALIYA. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF NITABEN K. PIPALIYA WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE DEPOSITOR FROM NITABEN K. PIPALIYA AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF NITABEN K. PIPALIYA WHO HAD GIVAN LOAN TO THE DEPOSITOR. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 14 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS 27 MAHENDRABHAI SHANTILAL DOSHI HUF 196330 250000 6596 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I AM SAYING THAT OF RS. 250000 RECEIVED BY ME ON 14.12.2012 IS IN PURSUANCE OF LOAN TAKEN BY ME FROM MITUL M SHAH. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF MITUL M SHAH WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE DEPOSITOR FROM MITUL M SHAH AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF MITUL M SHAH WHO HAD GIVEN LOAN TO THE DEPOSITOR. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 28 MAHESHBHAI DEVSHIBHAI KOLADIYA 195450 600000 17014 WE HAVE RECEIVED PAYMENT OF RS. 6,00,000/- ON 06.12.2012 OF POLISHED DIAMOND SALES FROM M/S. BHUVNESHVARI DIAMOND. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OR STOCK OF POLISHED DIAMOND WITH THE DEPOSITOR WHICH WAS STATED TO BE SOLD TO M/S BHUVNESHVARI DIAMOND. MERE STATING THAT SALE WAS DONE TO M/S BHUVNESHVARI DIAMOND AND SALE PROCEED WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNSECURED LOAN IS A SELF-SERVING STATEMENT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, WHEN THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON FROM RESIDENCE AND NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OR STOCK WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 29 MAHESHBHAI NANJIBHAI SAVLIYA 208550 700000 8803 IN THIS CASE, NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT RETURNED UNSERVED. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 04.01.2016, WAS REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT FOR VIDE NOTICE U/S .133(6) OF THE ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 15 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS ACT BUT NOTHING WAS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF LOAN TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 30 MEHULBHAI SUMATILAL SHAH 185540 525000 8544 I AM DOING PURCHASE AND SALE ALONG WITH LIC COMMISSION INCOME IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I AM SAYING THAT I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO CHETAN B. SHAH EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK ON 05.02.2013 AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF CHETAN BHARATBHAI SHAH WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT CHETAN BHARATBHAI SHAH HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 32 MUKESHBHAI B MALAVIYA HUF 195740 500000 8137 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT, WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEEE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS FROM VIJAY K. TALAVIYA THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OR STOCK WITH THE DEPOSITOR WHICH STATED TO BE SOLD TO VIJAY K. TALAVIYA. IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT WHAT WAS SOLD IS NOT AT ALL MENTIONED BY THE DEPOSITOR. MERE STATING THAT SALE WAS DONE TO VIJAY K. TALAVIYA AND SALE PROCESS WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNSECURED LOAN IS A SELF-SERVING STATEMENT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, WHEN THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON FROM RESIDENCE AND NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OR STOCK WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 16 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION 33 NAYANABEN JAGDISHBHAI BHANSALI 197930 225000 6103 I AM UNDER BUSINESS OF TRADING OF DIAMOND AS THIS BUSINESS IS CARRIED FROM MY RESIDENCE NO EVIDENCE IS SUBMITTED. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK ON 08.12.2012 AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO ASSESSEEE AS LOAN. FURTHER, I HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM BHAVNABEN J. DOSHI ON 11.12.2012 WHICH WAS ALSO GIVEN BY ME TO ASSESSEE AS A LOAN. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HER TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHERMORE, NO PAN, COPY OF ITP AND BANK STATEMENT OF BHAVNABEN J. DOSHI WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE DEPOSITORS FROM BHAVNABEN J. DOSHI AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE BHAVNABEN J. DOSHI WHO HAD GIVEN LOAN TO THE DEPOSITORS. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 34 NITESHBHAI DINESHCHANDRA SHAH NO ITR 300000 3773 IN THIS CASE, NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT RETURNED UNSERVED. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 04.01.2016, WAS REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT FOR VIDE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT BUT NOTHING WAS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF LOAN TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 35 PARI JEMS 196030 250000 3699 I HAVE DONE BUSINES S OF RETAIL DIAMOND TRADING AND I HAVE NO ANY EVIDENCE OF BUSINESS CARRIED. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO M/S. RADHE THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HER. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 17 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS CORPORATION EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN. NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITP AND BANK STATEMENT OF M/S RADHE CORPORATION WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT M/S RADHE CORPORATION HAD TAKEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 38 POOJABEN HASMUKHLAL MEHTA 173980 200000 1825 I AM INTO BUSINESS OF PURCHASE / SALE OF DIAMONDS AND IT IS DONE IN MARKET NO PROOFS IS THERE. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO HASMUKHBHAI MEHTA EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEEE AS LOAN. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HER. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF HASMUKHBHAI MEHTA WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT HASMUKHBHAI MEHTA HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HER TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 39 PRAVINCHANDRA K SHAH 193350 525000 7638 I AM DOING BUSINESS OF RETAILER OF DIAMOND, OPERATING AT MY HOUSE THERE IS NO SPECIFIC BUSINESS ADDRESS HOWEVER IN SUPPORT OF BUSINESS CARRIED. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO M/S. RADHE CORPORATION EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HER. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF M/S RADHE CORPORATION WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT M/S RADHE CORPORATION HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HER TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 18 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS 40 PRAVINBHAI G SHAH HUF 195740 375000 5733 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I AM SAYING THAT OF RS.375000 RECEIVED ON 28.01.2013 BY ME IS PURSUANCE OF LOAN TAKEN BY ME FROM PRAVINBHAI G. SHAH. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF PRAVINBHAI G. SHAH WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE DEPOSITOR FROM PRAVINBHAI G.SHAH WHO HAD GIVEN LOAN TO THE DEPOSITOR. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 43 RAMESHBHAI MOHANLAL SHAH HUF 195660 400000 5425 IN THIS CASE, NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT RETURNED UNSERVED. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 04.01.2016, WAS REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT FOR VIDE NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT BUT NOTHING WAS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF LOAN TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 45 RANJITBHAI V PADHIYAR 193700 400000 5918 I HAVE DONE BUSINESS OF RETAIL OF DIAMOND TRADING AND I HAVE NO ANY EVIDENCE OF BUSINESS CARRIED. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO M/S. RADHE CORPORATION EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK AND THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HER. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF M/S RADHE CORPORATION WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT M/S RADHE CORPORATION HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HER TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 19 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS 46 SAHILBHAI HASMUKHLAL MEHTA 198520 250000 3144 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I AM SAYING THAT OF RS.250000 RECEIVED ON 08.02.2013 BY ME IS PURSUANCE OF LOAN TAKEN BY ME FROM POOJABEN H. MEHTA THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF POOJABEN H. MEHTA WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE DEPOSITOR FROM POOJABEN H. MEHTA AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF POOJABEN H. MEHTA WHO HAD GIVEN LOAN TO THE DEPOSITOR. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 47 SANGITABEN KALPESHBHAI DOSHI 197570 300000 2219 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I HAVE GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS FROM MANSUKHBHAI K. BHALIA. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OR STOCK WITH THE DEPOSITOR WHICH WAS STATED TO BE SOLD TO MANUSKHBHAI K. BHALALA. IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT WHAT WAS SOLD IS NOT AT ALL MENTIONED BY THE DEPOSITOR. MERE STATING THAT SALE WAS DONE TO MANSUKHBHAI K. BHALALA AND SALE PROCEED WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNSECURED LOAN IS A SELF-SERVING STATEMENT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, WHEN THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON FROM RESIDENCE AND NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OR STOCK WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 49 SANJAYBHAI NANALAL SHAH HUF 1936000 350000 9752 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 20 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I AM SAYING THAT OF RS. 375000 RECEIVED ON 28.01.2013 BY ME IS IN PURSUANCE OF LOAN TAKEN BY ME FROM AJAY R SALVI & HITESH R. SHAH DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF AJAY R SALVI & HITESH R. SHAH WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE DEPOSITOR FROM AJAY R SALVI & HITESH R. SHAH AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF AJAY R SALVI & HITESH R. SHAH WHO HAD GIVEN LOAN TO THE DEPOSITOR. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 50 SANJAYBHAI VARDHILAL SANGHVI 195550 325000 8575 IN THIS CASE, NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT RETURNED UNSERVED. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 04.01.2016, WAS REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT FOR VIDE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT BUT NOTHING WAS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF LOAD TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 51 SHAILESHGIRI GULABGIRI GOSWAMI 198370 250000 6658 I AM DOING GENERAL TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO RAMESHBHAI L DIYORA EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK ON 12.12.2012. THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEEE AS LOAN. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF RAMESHBHAI L DIYORA WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT RAMESHBHAI L DIYORA HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 21 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS 52 SHANTILAL MANILAL MEHTA 198080 675000 6158 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I HAVE GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEEE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS FROM BHARATBHAI B. GHELANI. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44 AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OR STOCK WITH THE DEPOSITOR WHICH WAS STATED TO BE SOLD TO BHARATBHAI B. GHELANI. IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT WHAT WAS SOLD IS NOT AT ALL MENTIONED BY THE DEPOSITOR. MERE STATING THAT SALE WAS DONE TO BHARATBHAI B. GHELANI AND SALE PROCEED WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNSECURED LOAN IS A SELF-SERVING STATEMENT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, WHEN THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON FROM RESIDENCE AND NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OR STACK WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTION TRANSACTION. 53 SHILPABEN CHAMPAKLAL SHAH 194630 500000 4562 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I HAVE GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS FROM MANSUKHBHAI K. BHALALA THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OR STOCK WITH THE DEPOSITOR WHICH WAS STATED TO BE SOLD TO MANSUKHBHAI K. BHALALA. IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT WHAT WAS SOLD IS NOT AT ALL MENTIONED BY THE DEPOSITOR. MERE STATING THAT SALE WAS DONE TO MANSUKHBHAI K. BHALALA AND SALE PROCEED WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNSECURED LOAN IS A SELF-SERVING STATEMENT. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, WHEN THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON FROM RESIDENCE AND NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OR STOCK WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 22 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 54 SUSHILABEN RAMESHBHAI SHAH 194550 300000 3995 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I HAD GIVEN LOAN TO RAMESHBHAI M SHAH HUF EARLIER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BACK ON 05.02.2013. THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY ME TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, NO PAN, COPY OF ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF RAMESHBHAI M SHAH HUF WAS GIVEN WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT RAMESHBHAI M SHAH HUF HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM THE DEPOSITOR AND REPAID THE SAME TO HIM DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER ADVANCED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 57 VITRAGBHAI DHIRAJLAL DHARU 197690 300000 8063 I AM DOING TRADING IN SURAT WHICH IS DONE FROM RESIDENCE, HENCE I DONT POSSESS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT. I AM SAYING THAT OF RS.300000 RECEIVED BY ME IS IN PURSUANCE OF LOAN TAKEN BY ME FROM HETALBEN DHARU ON 12.12.2012. THE DEPOSITOR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE DEPOSITOR HAD SIMPLY DISCLOSED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT HETALBEN DHARU STATED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED SALE PROCEEDS FROM VITRAGBHAI DHARU,WHEREAS VITRANGBHAI DHARU STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED LOAN FROM HER AND GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS CLEAR CONTRADICTION IN THE STATEMENT OF BOTH THE DEPOSITOR WHO HAD GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A WILLFULL ATTEMPT BOTH BY HETALBEN DHARU AND VIRAGBHAI D.DHARU TO ROUTE UNEXPLAINED MONEY TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. NO EVIDENCE OF SALE OF ITEM WAS GIVEN BY HETALBEN DHARU AND NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BY HETALBEN DHARU WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.3,00,000/- EACH ON 11.12.2012 & ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 23 S. NO NAME OF PARTY ITR LOAN GIVEN INTEREST SUBMISSION OF THE DEPOSITOR FINDINGS 07.01.2013 IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREAFTER ISSUING CHEQUE TO VITRAGBHAI D. DHARU. SIMILARLY, VITRAGBHAI D. DHARU ISSUED CHEQUE OF RS.5,25,000/- TO HETALBEN DHARU FOR THE PURCHASE OF ITEMS BUT WHAT WAS DONE WITH THE ITEM PURCHASED AND WHERE SUCH ITEMS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN BOOKS HAD NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY VITRAGBHAI D. DHARU. THIS CLEARLY PROVES THAT THERE WAS NO SALE/PURCHASE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THEM AND CASH WAS DEPOSITED AND ROTATED TO THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSACTION. 4. THE LD.AO ON THE ABOVE ANALYSIS, MADE ADDITION O F RS.1,79,29,883/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. HE F URTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGED PAYMENT OF I NTEREST ON THESE LOANS WHICH WERE TERMED AS BOGUS, THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE SHAPE OF INTEREST DESERVES TO BE DIS ALLOWED. HE DISALLOWED SUCH INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND MADE ADDIT ION OF RS.3,01,277/-. 5. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ADDITIONS, THE ASSESSEE CA RRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ASSESSEE HA S COMPILED DETAILS IN TABULAR FORM EXHIBITING THE NAMES OF LEN DERS/DEPOSITORS; THE AMOUNT RECEIVED, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY IT AND O BSERVATION OF THE AO. IT HAS ALSO FILED ITS EXPLANATION QUA SUCH OBSERVATION OF THE AO. THESE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.1 T O 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THESE DETAILS ARE ALSO BEEN COMPILED IN TABU LAR FORM AND SUBMITTED BEFORE US WHICH READ AS UNDER: SR. NO. AS PER CHART OF THE ORDER NAME OF DEPOSITOR LOAN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR (RS.) INTEREST CREDITED DURING THE YEAR (RS.) EVIDENCES SUBMITTED OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT FIRM DETAILS PAGE NO. OF THE PAPERBOOK 1 AMRATBHAI PATEL 300000 3773 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 26 27 28-29 30 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM MULJIBHAI V. CHAUDHARI. IN THE PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 29 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM MULJIBHAI V. CHAUDHARI. 2 ARIHANT EXPORTS 550000 6818 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 232 233 234 NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS UNSERVED AND NO RESPONSE IS RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR REQUISITE DETAILS ARE SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 232 TO 234 OF PAPERBOOK. 3 ASHABEN PRAVINBHAI KUBADIYA 250000 3144 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 31 32 33-34 35 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM HITESHBHAI H. SHAH. IN THE PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 34 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM HITESHBHAI H. SHAH. 4 ASHVINBHAI NAGJIBHAI VEKARIYA 500000 8137 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF AKHAND ANAND CO- OP BANK (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 173 174 175-176 177 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 176 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 25 5 BHARATBHAI SHANTILAL DOSHI 300000 2219 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 36 37 38-39 40 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 39 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 6 BIRENBHAI A SANGHAVI 600000 9173 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF UBI (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 41 42 43-44 45 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM CHETANBHAI BHARATBHAI SHAH. IN THE PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 44 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM CHETANBHAI BHARATBHAI SHAH. 7 CHANDRIKABEN K DOSHI 250000 7027 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT(B) ITR OF AY 2013-14(C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA(D) LEDGER ACCOUNT IN BOOKS OF NILESHBHAI PATEL(E) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 464748- 495051 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM NILESHBHAI NARSANGBHAI PATEL. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF NILESHBHAI NARSANGBHAI PATEL IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 50 OF PAPERBOOK, WHERE IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID TO CHANDRIKABEN DOSHI. 8 CHETANBHAI J SHAH 400000 5030 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR & COI OF AY 2013-14 (C) BANK PASSBOOK (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 235 236-238 239 240 NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS UNSERVED AND NO RESPONSE IS RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR REQUISITE DETAILS ARE SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 235 TO 240 OF PAPERBOOK. 9 CHINTAN DOSHI 200000 5671 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF DENA BANK (D) LEDGER ACCOUNT IN BOOKS OF PRAKASHBHAI DOSHI (E) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 52 53 54-55 56 57 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM PRAKASHBHAI DOSHI. THE PASSBOOK AND LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF PRAKASHBHAI DOSHI IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 54 TO 56 OF PAPERBOOK, WHERE IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID TO CHINTAN DOSHI. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 26 10 DARSHANABEN P SHAH 250000 3575 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF UBI (E) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 178 179 180-181 182 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 181 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 11 DEVESHBHAI M SHAH 500000 7151 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) BANK STATEMENT OF UBI (E) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 183 184 185 186 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 185 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 12 GAUTAM GEMS 250000 3699 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) BANK STATEMENT OF UBI (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 58 59 60 61 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. RADHE CORPORATION. IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 60 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. RADHE CORPORATION. 13 GHANSHYAMBHAI G RAKHOLIYA 250000 3144 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT(B) ITR OF AY 2013-14(C) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 241242243 NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS UNSERVED AND NO RESPONSE IS RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR REQUISITE DETAILS ARE SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 241 TO 243 OF PAPERBOOK. 14 GHANSHYAMBHAI V KABARIYA 500000 14178 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF VIJAYA BANK (E) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 187 188 189-190 191 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. MAHASHAKTI GEMS. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 190 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. MAHASHAKTI GEMS. 15 GIRISHBHAI L. VORA 200000 2712 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 62 63 64-65 66 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 65 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 16 GITABEN JAGABHAI PATEL 250000 1849 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 192 193 194-195 196 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 195 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 27 17 GOMTIBEN CHAUDHARY 250000 7027 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) LEDGER ACCOUNT IN BOOKS OF JIVRAJIBHAI CHAUDHARY (E) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 67 68 69-70 71 72 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM JIVRAJBHAI S. CHAUDHARY. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF JIVRAJBHAI CHAUDHARY IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 71 OF PAPERBOOK, WHERE IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID TO GOMTIBEN CHAUDHARY. 18 GOMTIBEN BHURABHAI PATEL 150000 999 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 244 245 246-247 248 NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS UNSERVED AND NO RESPONSE IS RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR REQUISITE DETAILS ARE SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 244 TO 248 OF PAPERBOOK. 19 HARJIBHAI DEVRAMBHAI PATEL 200000 2712 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT(B) ITR OF AY 2013-14(C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA(D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 737475- 7778 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 76 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 20 HETALBEN MEHULBHAI DHARU 525000 7767 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) LEDGER ACCOUNT IN BOOKS OF VITRAGBHAI D. DHARU (E) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 197 198 199-200 201 202 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM VITRAGBHAI D. DHARU. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF VITRAGBHAI D. DHARU IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 50 OF PAPERBOOK, WHERE IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID TO HETALBEN M. DHARU. 21 JAGDISHBHAI D PADHIYAR 250000 3575 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) BANK STATEMENT OF UBI (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 203 204 205 206 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 285 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 28 22 JAYSHREEBEN K SANGHAVI 550000 8137 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF UBI (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 79 80 81-82 83 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. RADHE CORPORATION. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 82 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. RADHE CORPORATION. 23 JITENDRABHAI HIMATLAL SHAH 300000 8507 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF DENA BANK (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 84 85 86-87 88 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM RUTIKABEN A. SHAH. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 87 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM RUTIKABEN A. SHAH. 24 KIRANBHAI DILIPBHAI SHAH 300000 8359 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF DENA BANK (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 89 90 91-92 93 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 92 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 25 LALJIBHAI DEVRAMBHAI PATEL 350000 9407 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT(B) ITR OF AY 2013-14(C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA(D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 949596- 9798 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 97 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 26 MAHENDRA DHIRUBHAI PIPALIYA 300000 8063 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 99 100 101-102 103 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 100 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 27 MAHENDRA SHANTILAL DOSHI HUF 250000 6596 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) LEDGER ACCOUNT IN BOOKS OF MITUL M. SHAH (E) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 104 105 106-107 108 109 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM MITUL M. SHAH. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF MITUL M. SHAH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 108 OF PAPERBOOK, WHERE IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID TO MAHENDRA S. DOSHI HUF. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 29 28 MAHESHBHAI DEVSHIBHAI KOLADIYA 600000 17014 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BOB (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 207 208 209-210 211 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 210 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 29 MAHESHBHAI NANJIBHAI SAVALIYA 700000 8803 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) BANK STATEMENT OF AKHAND ANAND CO-OP. BANK (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 249 250-253 254 255 NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS UNSERVED AND NO RESPONSE IS RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR REQUISITE DETAILS ARE SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 249 TO 255 OF PAPERBOOK. 30 MEHULBHAI SUMATILAL SHAH 525000 8544 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF SYNDICATE BANK (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 110 111 112-113 114 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM CHETANBHAI B. SHAH. IN THE PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 113 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM CHETANBHAI B. SHAH. 32 MUKESHBHAI B MALAVIYA HUF 500000 8137 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT(B) ITR OF AY 2013-14(C) PASSBOOK OF AKHAND ANAND CO-OP. BANK(D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 212213214- 215216 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 215 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 33 NAYANABEN JAHDISHBHAI BHANSALI 225000 6103 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) LEDGER ACCOUNT IN BOOKS OF VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS AND BHAVNABEN J. DOSHI (E) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 115 116 117-118 119-120 121 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM BHAVNABEN J. DOSHI & VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS. IN THE PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 118 OF PAPERBOOK AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE DEPOSITOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS AND BHAVNABEN DOSHI PLACED AT PAGE NO. 119 AND 120 OF PAPERBOOK RESPECTIVELY, IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID TO NAYANABEN BHANSALI. 34 NITESHBHAI DINESHCHANDRA SHAH 300000 3773 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 256 257 NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS UNSERVED AND NO RESPONSE IS RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR REQUISITE DETAILS ARE SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 256 TO 257 OF PAPERBOOK. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 30 35 PARI GEMS 250000 3699 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) BANK STATEMENT OF UBI (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 122 123 124 125 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. RADHE CORPORATION. IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 124 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. RADHE CORPORATION. 38 POOJABEN HASMUKHLAL MEHTA 200000 1825 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 126 127 128-129 130 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM HASMUKHBHAI MEHTA. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 129 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM HASMUKHBHAI MEHTA. 39 PRAVINCHANDRA K SHAH 525000 7638 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 136 137 138-139 140 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. RADHE CORPORATION. IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 139 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. RADHE CORPORATION. 40 PRAVINBHAI G SHAH HUF 375000 5733 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT(B) ITR OF AY 2013-14(C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA(D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 131132133- 134135 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 134 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 43 RAMESHBHAI MOHANLAL SHAH HUF 400000 5425 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) LEDGER ACCOUNT IN BOOKS OF SUSHILABEN SHAH (E) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 258 259 260-261 262 263 NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS UNSERVED AND NO RESPONSE IS RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR REQUISITE DETAILS ARE SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 258 TO 263 OF PAPERBOOK. 45 RANJITBHAI V PADHIYAR 400000 5918 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) BANK STATEMENT OF UBI (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 141 142 143 144 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. RADHE CORPORATION. IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 139 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. RADHE CORPORATION. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 31 46 SAHILBHAI HASMUKHLAL MEHTA 250000 3144 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 145 146 147-148 149 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM POOJABEN H. MEHTA. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 148 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM POOJABEN H. MEHTA. 47 SANGITABEN KALPESHBHAI DOSHI 300000 2219 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 217 218 219-220 221 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 220 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 49 SANJAYBHAI NANALAL SHAH HUF 350000 9752 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT(B) ITR OF AY 2013-14(C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA(D) LEDGER ACCOUNT IN BOOKS OF VITRAGBHAI D. DHARU(E) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 150151152- 153154155 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM AJAY R. SALVI & HITESH R. SHAH. NO SUCH AMOUNT IS RECEIVED FROM AJAY R. SALVI OR HITESH R. SHAH.THIS AMOUNT IS RECEIVED FROM VITRAGBHAI DHARU, WHICH IS REFLECETED IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 153 OF PAPERBOOK AND LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF VITRAGBHAI D. DHARU. 50 SANJAYBHAI V. SANGHAVI 325000 8575 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 264 265 266-267 268 NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS UNSERVED AND NO RESPONSE IS RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR REQUISITE DETAILS ARE SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 264 TO 268 OF PAPERBOOK. 51 SHAILESHGIRI GULABGIRI GOSWAMI 250000 6658 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BOB (D) LEDGER ACCOUNT IN BOOKS OF RAMESHBHAI L. DIYORA (E) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 156 157 158-159 160 161 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM RAMESHBHAI L. DIYORA. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHAILESHBHAI G. GOSWAMI IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF RAMESHBHAI L. DIYORA IS SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 160 OF PAPERBOOK, WHERE IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID TO SHAILESHBHAI G. GOSWAMI. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 32 52 SHANTILAL MANILAL MEHTA 675000 6158 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BOB (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 222 223 224-225 226 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 225 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 53 SHILPABEN CHAMPAKLAL SHAH 500000 4562 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BOB (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 227 228 229-230 231 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 230 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 54 SUSHILABEN RAMESHBHAI SHAH 300000 3995 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT(B) ITR OF AY 2013-14(C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA(D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 162163164- 165166 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM RAMESHBHAI M. SHAH HUF. IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR AT PAGE NO. 148 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM RAMESHBHAI M. SHAH HUF. 57 VITRAGBHAI DHIRAJLAL DHARU 300000 8063 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) PASSBOOK OF BANK OF INDIA (D) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 167 168 169-170 171 CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE BANK PASSBOOK OF THE DEPOSITOR SUBMITTED AT PAGE NO. 170 OF PAPERBOOK, IT IS REFLECTED AMOUNT OF LOAN IS EARLIER RECEIVED IN BANK ACCOUNT. GRAND TOTAL 1,72,25,000 2,94,187 58 PUSHPABEN ASHOKKUMAR SHAH 250000 7089 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT 172 NO OBSE RVATION OF THE AO - 59 ALPESH GAMI 15000 0 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 10 11 NO OBSERVATION OF THE AO - 60 ANITA 10000 0 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 12 13 NO OBSERVATION OF THE AO - 61 NAMAN 15000 0 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 14 15 NO OBSERVATION OF THE AO - ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 33 62 PANKAJBHAI R. SHAH 404883 5425 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) ITR OF AY 2013-14 (C) BANK PASSBOOK AND LEDGER ACCOUNTS 16 17 18-23 NO OBSERVATION OF THE AO - 63 VIRAL N. PATEL 10000 0 (A) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT (B) REPAYMENT OF LOAN A/C. 24 25 NO OBSERVATION OF THE AO - GRAND TOTAL 1,79,29,883 3,06,701 6. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE, BUT DID NOT FIND ANY MERIT AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY RECORDING THE FOLLOWING FINDING: 5.6 THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT U/S 68 T HE OPINION OF THE AO FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT SATISFACTORY IS REQUIRED TO BE B ASED OBJECTIVELY ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF MATERIALS AND OTHER ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES. I FIND THAT THE AO BASED O N THE VERY SMALL INCOMES OF THE LENDERS AND DOUBTFUL SOUR CES OF FUND IN THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE LENDERS CAME TO FORM THE OPINION OF HIS BEING NOT SATISFIED AS TO GENUINENES S OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF LOANS GIVEN AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS TO ADVANCE LOANS OF RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS. IT IS WELL SETTLED IN LAW THAT THE ONUS OF PROVIDING THE SOURC E OF FUND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THI S REGARD THIS ALSO IS AN ESTABLISHED LAW THAT MERE TRANSACTI ONS THROUGH BANK ACCOUNTS BANKING CHANNELS ARE NOT ENOU GH TO EXPLAIN MONEY AND THAT CREDITWORTHINESS OF CREDITOR S AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION HAVE TO BE EXAMINED BY T HE AO AND THAT THE TRANSACTIONS MADE BY CHEQUES MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE SACROSANCT AND ENOUGH TO DISCHARGE T HE BURDEN OF THE ASSESSEE. IN KAMAL MOTORS VS CIT 131 TAXMAN 155 IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESS EE TO PROVE THAT CREDITORS ARE PERSONS OF MEANS. IN THIS CASE IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT WHEN THE CASH CREDITORS ARE INCO ME TAX ASSESSEES IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THEY ARE NOT THE P ERSONS OF MEANS. BUT THIS BY ITSELF CANNOT BE SUFFICIENT AND E ND IN ITSELF. TO ME MERE FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS DOE S NOT PROVE THE WORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS RATHER THE WORT HINESS OF THE CREDITORS HAVE TO BE DETERMINE BASED ON THEIR C APACITY TO GIVE SUCH LOANS WHICH IS COMBINATION OF THE INCOME, THE CAPITAL AND TURNOVER I.E. VOLUME OF RECEIPTS OF THA T PERSON. THE INCOME TAX RETURNS OF THE CREDITORS SHOULD NOT BE RETURNS OF MARGINAL INCOME PAYING LITTLE TAX AND ONLY FOR T HE PURPOSE OF BUILDING UP CAPITAL AND CREATING RECORDS OF LOAN S TRANSACTIONS. THE RETURNS OF THE CREDITORS WHICH HA VE NOT BEEN FOUND WORTHY OF GIVING LOANS TO THE APPELLANT ARE SHORT ON THESE ASPECTS AND THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN HIS NOT BEING SATISFIED AND IN HAVING ADVERSE INFERENCE ON CREDIT WORTHINESS OF LENDERS AND THUS THE GENUINENESS OF LOANS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT. THE INFERENCE OF THE AO IN THE PRESENT C ASE IS NOT MATTER OF CONJECTURE AND SURMISES. ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 35 5.7 IT IS ALSO A SETTLED LAW THAT UNLESS THE ASSESS EE HAS DISCHARGED THE BURDEN U/S 68, THE ONUS OF PROVING T HAT THE LENDERS HAD NO CREDITWORTHINESS WILL NOT SHIFT ON T HE AO. HOWEVER IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT IT IS SEEN THAT TH OUGH THE APPELLANT HAD NOL DISCHARGED ITS ONUS COMPLETELY TH E AO HAD ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) TO 57 CREDITORS AND HAS A NALYSED THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THEM AND THE DETAILS PROVI DED BY THE APPELLANT IN CASE OF THE CREDITORS TO WHOM THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) WAS RETURNED UNSERVED. THE LD. ARS ARE N OT JUSTIFIED IN ASSERTING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DISCH ARGED ITS ONUS AND WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE O F FUND IN THE HAND OF THE LENDERS TO ADVANCE LOANS TO THE APP ELLANT. NO DOUBT THE CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE APPELLANT LAY DOW N THE PRINCIPLES AS TO VARIOUS COMPONENTS REQUIRED FOR SA TISFACTION OF SECTION 68 BUT WITH DUE RESPECT TO THOSE CASE LA WS AND THE LD. ARS, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE APPELLANT HA S FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE FACTS OF THOSE CASE LAWS ARE SIM ILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT AS MARSHALLED BY THE AO AFTE R ANALYZING THE DETAILS RECEIVED ON ENQUIRY U/S 133(6 ). I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT HAVING ESTABLISH THE IDENT ITY, THE APPELLANT HAD TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND IF THE SAME IS NOT PROVED THE LOAN TR ANSACTIONS CANNOT BE HELD GENUINE. MERE RATIOS OF THESE CASES CANNOT RESCUE THE APPELLANT UNLESS THE APPELLANT PROVES TH AT THE AO IS NOT OBJECTIVE IN HIS NON SATISFACTION AND THAT T HE CREDITORS HAD THE CAPACITY TO GIVE THE ALLEGED LOANS. IN FACT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EVEN CONTENDED THAT THE LENDERS A RE PERSONS OF MEANS AND HAVE CAPACITY TO GIVEN LOANS. 5.8 DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 27/12/2017 TO THE APPELLANT IT WAS REQUIRED THAT EI THER THE APPELLANT PRODUCES THE LENDERS BEFORE ME FOR EXAMIN ATION OR I MAY REFER THE CASE TO THE AO BEFORE WHOM THOSE LE NDERS CAN BE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT BECAUSE WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS NO RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT CAN BE GRANTED. 5.9 IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER DATED 27/12/2017 THE LD. ARS APPEARED ON 15/01/2018 AND AGAIN POINTED OUT TO VAR IOUS CASE LAWS WHEREIN IN ESSENCE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR IS PROVED WHEN THE AMOUNTS ARE RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES DRAWN FROM BA NK ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS. BUT AGAIN WITH DUE RESPE CT TO ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 36 THOSE CASE LAWS THE RATIOS DO NOT PROTECT THE APPEL LANT AS THE CREDITORS HAVE NEITHER ENOUGH INCOMES AND CAPITALS NOR ENOUGH BALANCES IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS ON REGULAR B ASIS. THE LD. ARS HAVE NOT MENTIONED BASED IN THE CAPITA/INCOME/BALANCE IN BANK ACCOUNT, THE LENDERS HAD FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO GIVE LOANS. IT WILL NOT BE WR ONG TO SAY THAT THE LD. AR'S SUBMISSION IS LONG IN LAW AND SHO RT ON FACTS. 7. BEFORE US, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECT ION 68 IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS TAKEN BY IT. IT HAS SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION OF AMOUNTS, COPY OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS , PAN DATA, BANK STATEMENTS ALONG WITH COPY OF PASS-BOOK, REPAY MENT OF LOAN AMOUNTS. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT ON T HE LAST OCCASION, BENCH HAS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT COPIES OF BA NK STATEMENT INDICATING THAT THE AMOUNTS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSE E HAVE BEEN CREDITED IN THEIR ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPA RED THE DETAILS OF SUCH REPAYMENT IN TABULAR FORM AND ALSO ANNEXED COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT, WHEREIN THE AMOUNTS REPAID BY THE A SSESSEE HAVE BEEN CREDIT IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE DEPOSITORS. HE SPECIFICALLY TOOK US THROUGH THE DETAILS WHICH CONTAINED IN PAGE NO.1 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWING HOW THE CREDITORS HAVE RECOGNIZE D THEIR RECEIPT OF MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE. WE DEEM IT APP ROPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE OF THESE DETAILS ALSO WHICH REDS AS UNDER : NO. NAME OF DEPOSITOR AMOUNT OF LOAN ADDED (RS.) INTEREST CREDITED DURING THE YEAR (RS.) REPAYMENT OF LOAN UTILIZATION OF FUNDS RECEIVED BY DEPOSITORS PAGE NOS. DATE AMOUNT (RS.) 1 AMRATBHAI PATEL 3,00,000 3,773 08-12-2014 3,08,987 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 37 2 ARIHANT EXPORTS 5,50,000 6,818 18/04/2014 5,50,000 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 3 ASHABEN P. KUBADIYA 2,50,000 3,144 05-01-2014 2,50,000 LOAN OF RS. 2,50,000 GIVEN TO NILESHKUMAR D VIRADI ON 12-05-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 246709 310 4 ASHVINBHAI NAGJIBHAI VEKARIYA 5,00,000 8,137 23/06/2015 5,49,710 BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT 311-312 5 BHARATBHAI SHANTILAL DOSHI 3,00,000 2,219 08-12-2014 3,08,987 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 6 BIRENBHAI A SANGHAVI 6,00,000 9,173 08-12-2014 6,17,976 LOAN OF RS. 7,00,000 GIVEN TO SHANTINATH ASSOCIATES ON 13-08-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 030195 313 7 CHANDRIKABEN K DOSHI 2,50,000 7,027 05-01-2014 2,50,000 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 8 CHETANBHAI J SHAH 4,00,000 5,030 23/06/2015 4,39,767 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 9 CHINTAN PRAKASHBHAI DOSHI 2,00,000 5,671 23/06/2015 2,19,884 LOAN OF RS. 2,20,000 GIVEN TO RUPALBEN ON 24-06-2015 BY CHEQUE NO. 108888 314-315 10 DARSHANABEN SHAH 2,50,000 3,575 07-08-2014 2,55,215 TRANSFERRED RS. 2,55,000 AS LOAN ON 10-07- 2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 007500 316-317 11 DEVESHBHAI M SHAH 5,00,000 7,151 28/07/2014 5,13,204 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 38 12 GAUTAM GEMS 2,50,000 3,699 07-04-2014 2,55,215 LOAN OF RS. 3,00,000 GIVEN TO MUKESHBHAI B. PATEL ON 10- 07-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 029740 318 13 GHANSHYAMBHAI G RAKHOLIYA 2,50,000 3,144 09-02-2014 2,58,544 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 14 GHANSHYAMBHAI V KABARIYA 5,00,000 14,178 09-02-2014 5,17,087 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 15 GIRISHBHAI L VORA 2,00,000 2,712 08-12-2014 2,05,992 LOAN OF RS. 2,00,000 GIVEN TO UPENDRA C SHAH ON 16- 08-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 477031 319 16 GITABEN JAGABHAI PATEL 2,50,000 1,849 08-12-2014 2,57,490 LOAN OF RS. 2,55,000 GIVEN TO UPENDRA C SHAH ON 16- 08-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 884776 320-321 17 GOMTIBEN JIVRAJBHAI CHAUDHARY 2,50,000 7,027 28/07/2014 2,56,602 LOAN OF RS. 2,50,000 GIVEN TO RITESHBHAI K SHAH HUF ON 30-07-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 000027 322-323 18 GOMTIBEN BHURABHAI PATEL 1,50,000 999 08-12-2014 1,54,494 LOAN OF RS. 1,60,000 GIVEN TO UPENDRA C SHAH ON 16- 08-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 043738 324-325 19 HARJIBHAI DEVRAMBHAI PATEL 2,00,000 2,712 18/04/2014 2,00,000 LOAN OF RS. 2,00,000 GIVEN TO PRITIBEN ON 22-04-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 000023 326-327 20 HETALBEN MEHULBHAI DHARU 5,25,000 7,767 28/07/2014 5,38,864 BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD IN SAVINGS BANK 328-329 ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 39 ACCOUNT 21 JAGDISHBHAI D PADHIYAR 2,50,000 3,575 07-04-2014 2,55,215 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 22 JAYSHREEBEN K SANGHAVI 5,50,000 8,137 28/07/2014 5,64,525 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 23 JITENDRABHAI HIMATLAL SHAH 3,00,000 8,507 08-12-2014 3,08,987 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 24 KIRANBHAI DILIPBHAI SHAH 3,00,000 8,359 28/07/2014 3,07,922 LOAN OF RS. 3,00,000 GIVEN TO ASHOK B DOSHI ON 30- 07-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 000017 330-331 25 LALJIBHAI DEVRAMBHAI PATEL 3,50,000 9,407 18/04/2014 3,50,000 LOAN OF RS. 3,75,000 GIVEN TO NCPL DEVELOPERS ON 23-04-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 000026 332-333 26 MAHENDRA DHIRUBHAI PIPALIYA 3,00,000 8,063 18/04/2014 3,00,000 LOAN OF RS. 3,25,000 GIVEN TO NCPL DEVELOPERS ON 23-04-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 025427 334-335 27 MAHENDRA SHANTILAL DOSHI HUF 2,50,000 6,596 28/07/2014 2,56,602 LOAN OF RS. 2,50,000 GIVEN TO BHADRESH TRADERS ON 31- 07-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 015419 336 28 MAHESHBHAI DEVSHIBHAI KOLADIYA 6,00,000 17,014 09-02-2014 6,20,506 WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 1,20,500 ON 03-09-2014 AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD 337-338 ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 40 29 MAHESHBHAI N. SAVALIYA 7,00,000 8,803 09-02-2014 7,23,923 TRANSFERRED RS. 7,00,100 AS LOAN ON 05-09- 2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 001230 339 30 MEHULBHAI SUMATILAL SHAH 5,25,000 8,544 08-12-2014 5,40,728 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 32 MUKESHBHAI B MALAVIYA HUF 5,00,000 8,137 23/06/2015 5,49,710 TRANSFERRED RS. 9,50,025 AS LOAN ON 24-06- 2015 BY CHEQUE NO. 511691 340-341 33 NAYANABEN JAHDISHBHAI BHANSALI 2,25,000 6,103 23/06/2015 2,47,370 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 34 NITESHBHAI D. SHAH 3,00,000 3,773 23/06/2015 3,29,826 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 35 PARI GEMS 2,50,000 3,699 07-04-2014 2,55,215 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 38 POOJABEN HASMUKHLAL MEHTA 2,00,000 1,825 05-01-2014 2,00,000 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 39 PRAVINCHANDRA K SHAH 5,25,000 7,638 07-04-2014 5,35,952 LOAN OF RS. 5,36,840 GIVEN TO MITTAL GEMS ON 10-07-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 317976 342-343 40 PRAVINBHAI G SHAH HUF 3,75,000 5,733 05-01-2014 3,75,000 LOAN OF RS. 3,75,000 GIVEN TO NILESHKUMAR D VIRADI ON 12-05-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 0149434 344-345 43 RAMESHBHAI MOHANLAL SHAH HUF 4,00,000 5,425 05-01-2014 4,00,000 TRANSFERRED RS. 1,00,000 AS LOAN ON 25-02- 2013 BY CHEQUE NO. 228011 AND RS. 5,00,000 AS LOAN ON 25-02- 346-347 ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 41 2013 BY CHEQUE NO. 228013 45 RANJITBHAI V PADHIYAR 4,00,000 5,918 07-04-2014 4,08,344 LOAN OF RS. 6,00,000 GIVEN TO STAR GALAXY ON 08-07-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 049465 348 46 SAHILBHAI HASMUKHLAL MEHTA 2,50,000 3,144 05-01-2014 2,50,000 BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT 349 47 SANGITABEN KALPESHBHAI DOSHI 3,00,000 2,219 08-12-2014 3,08,987 LOAN OF RS. 3,15,000 GIVEN TO UPENDRA C SHAH ON 16- 08-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 043032 350-351 49 SANJAYBHAI NANALAL SHAH HUF 3,50,000 9,752 28/07/2014 3,59,243 LOAN OF RS. 3,50,000 GIVEN TO BHADRESH TRADERS ON 30- 07-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 000027 352 50 SANJAYBHAI V. SANGHAVI 3,25,000 8,575 28/07/2014 3,33,583 LOAN OF RS. 3,50,000 GIVEN TO PINKIBEN S MEHTA ON 30- 07-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 880304 353-354 51 SHAILESHGIRI GULABGIRI GOSWAMI 2,50,000 6,658 18/04/2014 2,50,000 TRANSFERRED RS. 2,70,000 AS LOAN AS 23-04- 2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 000016 355-356 52 SHANTILAL MANILAL MEHTA 6,75,000 6,158 23/06/2015 7,42,108 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 53 SHILPABEN CHAMPAKLAL SHAH 5,00,000 4,562 23/06/2015 5,49,710 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - 54 SUSHILABEN RAMESHBHAI SHAH 3,00,000 3,995 05-01-2014 3,00,000 COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM DEPOSITOR - ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 42 57 VITRAGBHAI DHIRAJLAL DHARU 3,00,000 8,063 18/04/2014 3,00,000 LOAN OF RS. 3,30,000 GIVEN TO NCPL DEVELOPERS ON 23-04-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 000014 357 58 PUSHPABEN ASHOKKUMAR SHAH 2,50,000 7,089 28/07/2014 2,56,602 LOAN OF RS. 2,50,000 GIVEN TO RITESHBHAI K. SHAH HUF ON 28-07-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 000012 358-359 59 ANITA TATOSANIYA 10,000 0 18/06/2013 10,000 REPAID IN CASH - 60 NAMAN 15,000 0 30/09/2013 15,000 REPAID IN CASH - 61 PANKAJBHAI R. SHAH 4,00,000 5,425 27/06/2014 4,00,000 CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 4,00,000 ON 28-06-2014 BY CHEQUE NO. 096397 360 52 VIRAL N PATEL 10,000 0 31/08/2013 10,000 REPAID IN CASH - 1,79,10,000 3,06,701 8. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, HE RELIED UPON LA RGE NUMBER OF DECISIONS, WHICH HAVE BEEN NOTICED BY THE LD.CIT(A) VIZ. DCIT VS. ROHINI BUILDERS, 256 ITR 360, CIT VS. ORISSA CORPOR ATION P.LTD., 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT VS. SHRI MAHAVIR CRIMPERS, TAX APPEAL NO.547 OF 208, CIT VS. CHANAKYA DEVELOPERS, 3 TAXMA NN.COM 91 (GUJ), CIT VS. RANCHHOD JIVABHAI NAKHAVA, 21 TAXMAN N.COM 159 (GUJ) ETC. ON THE STRENGTH OF THESE DETAILS AND DE CISIONS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS PUT UPON IT BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 68 AND NO ADDITION DESERVES TO BE MADE IN HIS HAND. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORD ERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE SPECIFICALLY TOOK US THROU GH PARAGRAPH 5.7 OF THE LD.CIT(A)S ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT AN HOLISTIC VIEW IS ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 43 REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY WHICH GIVES A SENSE OF SATISFACTION THAT LOANS/DEPOSITS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE GENUINE. A CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALL THE EVI DENCES DID NOT INFUSE CONFIDENCE IN THE AO AS WELL AS IN THE CIT(A ) TO FORM AN OPINION THAT THESE LOANS ARE GENUINE-ONE; RATHER IT SUGGESTS THAT ONCE A PERSON ADVANCES LOANS RANGING BETWEEN RS.2,0 0,000/- TO RS.3,00,000/- TO SUCH DEVELOPER AT A MEAGER RATE OF INTEREST IS AN EFFORT OF MANIPULATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE EXPLANATION GIVEN ON PAPERS DESERVES TO BE REJECTED . IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, HE RELIED UPON THE LATEST DECIS ION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. NRA IRON & STEEL P.LTD., 103 TAXMANN.COM 48 (SC). HE PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THIS DECISION. HE ALSO FILED COPY OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THIS VERY CASE WHICH HAS BEEN REVERSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. HIS EMPHASIS THAT THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT LOWER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES FAILE D TO APPRECIATE THAT INVESTOR COMPANIES WHICH HAD FILED INCOME-TAX RETURNS WITH MEAGER OR NIL INCOME HAVE FAILED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE Y HAD INVESTED SUCH HUGE SUM OF MONEY IN THE ASSESSEE-COM PANY. 10. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND G ONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS A DIRECT BEARING ON THE CONTROVERSY. THEREFORE, IT I S PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THIS SECTION, WHI CH READS AS UNDER: WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE T HEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINI ON OF THE OFFICER, SATISFACTORY THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CH ARGED TO ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 44 INCOME TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PR EVIOUS YEAR. 11. A PERUSAL OF THIS SECTION WOULD INDICATE THAT B ASICALLY THIS SECTION CONTEMPLATES THREE CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO B E FULFILLED BY AN ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO GIVE EXPLANATION WHICH WILL EXHIBIT NATURE OF TRANSACTIO N, AND ALSO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH CREDIT. THE EXPLANATION SHOULD BE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO. IN ORDER TO GIVE SUCH TYPE OF EXPLANATION, WHICH COULD SATISFY THE AO, THE ASSESS EE SHOULD FULFILL THREE CONDITIONS VIZ. (A) IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS , (B) GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, AND (C) CREDIT WORTHINESS OF TH E CREDITORS/DEPOSITORS. AS FAR AS CONSTRUCTION OF SE CTION 68 AND TO UNDERSTAND ITS MEANING IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO MU CH DIFFICULTY. THE DIFFICULTY ARISES WHEN WE APPLY THE CONDITIONS FORMULATED IN SECTION IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. IN O THER WORDS, IT HAS BEEN PROPOUNDED IN VARIOUS DECISIONS THAT SECTI ON 68 CONTEMPLATES THAT THERE SHOULD BE A CREDIT OF AMOUN T IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE, (B) SUCH AMOUNT HAS TO BE SUM RECEIVED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, (C) THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATI ON ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH CREDIT FOUND IN THE BOOKS , OR (D) EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE O PINION OF THE AO SATISFACTORY. THE ABOVE THREE REQUIREMENTS HAVE TO BE TESTED NOT SUPERFICIALLY BUT IN-DEPTH, HAVING REGARD TO THE HU MAN PROBABILITIES AND NORMAL COURSE OF HUMAN CONDUCTS. THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY SHOULD FIND OUT THE REALITY OF TRANSACTION. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE AO IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE TH AT APPARENT TRANSACTION PROJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REAL, THEN CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. THIS CAN BE T ESTED ON THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, MAKING REFERENCE TO SUBS TANTIAL ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 45 EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS COLLE CTED BY THE AO. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT CERTIFICAT E OF INCORPORATION OR PAN NUMBER BEING REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DEM ONSTRATE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT DOCU MENTS, BECAUSE THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE THEIR OWN LIMITATION, AND PAN IS BEING ALLOTTED ON AN APPLICATION MADE BY AN ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT IN THESE DAYS, SUCH ACCOU NT IS BEING ALLOTTED THROUGH ON-LINE APPLICATION. THERE IS NO I NVESTIGATION ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSESSEE WHO OBTAINED PAN . THUS, THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE THEIR OWN LIMITATION. SIMILARLY, CA SH CREDIT RECEIVED FROM BANKING CHANNEL HAS A CORROBORATIVE F ACTOR, WHICH DOES NOT CONSTRUE AS GENUINE ALWAYS. 12. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, LET US EXAMINE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD.DR IN THE CASE OF NRA IRON & STEEL P.LTD.(SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, THE FACTS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. THAT WAS THE CASE WHERE MONEY WAS RECEI VED AS SHARE APPLICATION PLUS PREMIUM ON PURCHASE OF SUCH SHARES . IT IS AN IRREVERSIBLE NATURE. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WHO RECE IVED SUCH MONEY WOULD NOT REFUND THE MONEY, BECAUSE, IT WAS C OST OF PURCHASE OF SHARES. THE SHARE APPLICANTS IN THAT C ASE HAVE PURCHASED THE SHARES ON PREMIUM AND INVESTED MONEY MORE THAN RS.90 LAKHS EACH. THERE WERE ROUGHLY 19 APPLICANTS WHO HAVE MADE INVESTMENT IN THE RANGE OF RS.90 LAKHS TO RS.9 5 LAKHS. THEY HAVE SHOWN INCOME OF RS.10,000/-, RS.14,000/- AND RS.5,000/-. IN THAT CONTEXT, HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT WHEN SHARE APPLICANTS WERE HAVING ME AGER INCOME OR NIL INCOME HOW THEY CAN MAKE AN ARRANGEMENT OF R S.90 LAKHS AND RS.95 LAKHS IN INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSEE-COMPA NY. IN THE ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 46 CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS RECEIVED LOANS WHICH A RE TO BE REPAID. IF IT FAILED TO REPAY AND LIABILITY IS CEASED, THEN IT WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS INCOME IN THE YEAR, WHEN LIABILITY TO PAY IS CEASED. THE SECOND FACTOR THAT IT HAS RECEIVED LOANS IN THE RANGE OF RS.2,00,000/- TO RS.5,00,000/- AND LENDERS/DEPOSITO RS HAVE RETURNED INCOME IN THE RANGE OF RS.1,90,000/- TO RS .2,20,000/-. THIS INCOME IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE AMOUNT OF LOA NS THEY HAVE ADVANCED. THEREFORE, NO BENEFIT CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NRA IRON & STEEL P.LTD. (SUPRA). THE FACTS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. 13. THE SECOND IMPORTANT FACT IN THE CASE OF THE PR ESENT ASSESSEE IS THAT IT HAS NOT ONLY FILED CONFORMATION S, COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS, BANK STATEMENTS, ALL THE CREDIT ORS HAVE RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO ISSUED UNDER SECT ION 133(6) EXCEPT AT SERIAL NO.2, 8, 13, 18, 29, 34 AND 43. T HEY HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADVANCEMENT OF LOANS. THE ASSESSEE H AS REPAID THESE LOANS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, AND THES E ENTRIES HAVE BEEN CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS . FOR BUTTRESSING THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF THE PASS-BOOKS. NOW, THE AO IS DOUBTING THESE EVIDENCES ON THE GROU ND THAT AFTER RECEIPT OF REPAYMENT, THESE CREDITORS HAVE FURTHER ADVANCED THE LOANS. THEY HAVE NOT KEPT THE MONEY WITH THEM. TO OUR MIND, THIS IS NOT A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR DOUBTING THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FOR THE CREDITORS TO DECIDE HOW TO TREAT THAT AMOUNT. WE CAN APPRECIATE THE CASES OF THE AO IF H E WAS ABLE TO LAY HIS HAND ON ANY OF THE EVIDENCE THAT AFTER RECE IPT OF REPAYMENT OF LOANS, MONEY TRAVELLED BACK TO THE ASS ESSEE. SIMILARLY, IF THE AO IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO.2069/AHD/2018 47 GIVEN CASH WHICH WAS DEPOSITED BY THE CREDITORS IN THEIR ACCOUNT; THEY HAVE GIVEN LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE AND ON RECEIP T REPAYMENT; THEY HAVE AGAIN WITHDRAWN THE AMOUNT AND REPAID TO THE ASSESSEE IN CASH. THERE IS NO SUCH EXERCISE OR MECHANISM DI SCERNIBLE FROM THE RECORD. WE HAVE ANALYSISED ALL THE MATERIAL PR ODUCED BEFORE US IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEM ENTS, AND WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED THE I NGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68. IT HAS PROVED IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR S, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE DOUBT RAISED BY THE AO QUA T HEIR CREDIT- WORTHINESS, BUT TO OUR MIND, THAT HAS ALSO BEEN PRO VED BY THE ASSESSEE BY PRODUCING COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS, COPIES OF THE BANK PASS BOOK, AND MORE SO, EVIDENCES DEMONSTRATIN G REPAYMENT OF LOANS TO ALL THE CREDITORS. AFTER MAK ING A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALL THE MATERIALS, WE ARE THE VIEW THAT NO ADDITION IS SUSTAINABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,79,29 ,883/-. SINCE LOANS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN TREATED AS GENUINE, THEREFORE, INTEREST EXPENDITURE RECOGNIZED ON SUCH LOANS DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITI ON OF RS,3,01,277/- IS ALSO DELETED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26 TH JUNE, 2019. SD/- SD/- (RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 26/06/2019
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
Initial LLP Agreement
₹0
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026