ACIT- Circle-1(1), Aligarh V. M/s Darshan Agroils Limited, Aligarh

ITA 226/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0237 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Assessment record; Onus to prove

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 226/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07 A.C.I.T. (AO), VS. M/S. DARSHAN AGROILS LIMITE D, CIRCLE 1(1), ALIGARH. U.S. JAIN ROAD, ALIGARH. (PAN : AAACD 5946 K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARGH, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 12.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 15.02.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD DATED 09.03.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,21,062/- MADE BY AO TOWARDS UNVER IFIABLE PURCHASES AS LD. CIT(A) HAS BASED HIS DECISION ON T HE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND COMPARISON OF G.P. OF ASSESSEE WITH LA ST YEAR RESULTS BUT IGNORED THE FACTS THE A.O. BASED HIS DECISION THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE DID NOT TALLY WITH THE BANK STATEMENT AND THE ASSES SEE DID NOT FILE ALL THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES MADE AND ALSO WERE NOT VER IFIABLE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,16,443/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN CREDITS WERE NOT GENUINE, AS COMPLETE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE A.O. LIKE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMEN TS COPIES AND ITA NO. 226/AGRA/2011 2 THEIR NARRATION BY THE LOAN CREDITORS AND THE LD. C IT(A) BY MERE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT AND ON THE BASIS OF COPY OF ITRS OF LOANS CREDITORS ALLOWED THE RELIEF. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.21,15,227/- MADE BY AO AS SUNDRY CRE DITORS WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THAT THE PUR CHASES WERE TREATED AS GENUINE ALSO CONSIDERED THE SUNDRY CREDI TORS AS GENUINE ALSO. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF STATES THAT DETAI LS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS OF BELOW RS.2 LAC OF OUTSTANDING BALANCE WERE NOT F URNISHED BEFORE THE A.O. IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ACCORDINGLY WERE NOT VERIFIABLE BY A.O. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILE D RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS INCOME (-) RS.17,25,398/-. AUDIT REPORT, PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET WERE FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASS ESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE AO AND OTHER DETAILS REQUIRED THROUGH ST ATUTORY NOTICES AND ALSO PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESS EE EARNED INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING OIL AND OIL CAKE FROM CRUSHING OF MUS TARD AND SUNFLOWER SEED. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES OF MUSTARD SEED AMOUNTING TO RS.2,02,88,152/-, SUNFLOWER SEED AMOUNTING TO RS.85 ,265/- AND OIL CAKES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,60,47,840/-. THUS, TOTAL PURCHASE S WERE MADE AT RS.3,64,21,257/-. HOWEVER, ALL THE DETAILS OF PURCH ASES WERE NEITHER PRODUCED NOR WERE VERIFIABLE. ACCORDING TO THE AO, DETAILS OF PA YMENT DID NOT TALLY WITH THE BANK STATEMENT. TWENTY FIVE PER CENT OF PURCHASES W ERE MADE IN CASH. THE AO WAS, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE PURCHASES ARE NOT GENUINE. ACCORDINGLY, 5% OF THE PURCHASES WERE DISALLOWED AMOUNTING TO RS.18,21 ,062/- ON ACCOUNT OF ITA NO. 226/AGRA/2011 3 PURCHASES BEING UNVERIFIABLE AND NON-GENUINE. ADDIT ION U/S. 69A WAS, ACCORDINGLY, MADE, ON WHICH GROUND NO. 1 ABOVE IS RAISED. 2.1 FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN NEW LOANS OF RS .12,16,443/- FROM M/S. SARVODAYA INTERNATIONAL, DELHI. EXCEPT THE ADDRESS OF THE LENDER AND MODE OF ACCEPTANCE OF CHEQUES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODU CE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS, CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF T HE CREDITOR. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS.12,16,443/- WAS MADE U/S. 69A OF THE IT ACT, ON WHICH GROUND NO. 2 ABOVE IS RAISED. 2.3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN CREDITORS FOR SUPP LY OF GOODS AMOUNTING TO RS.21,15,227/- BELOW RS.2,00,000/-. NO DETAILS REGA RDING ADDRESS, NATURE OF TRANSACTION, DETAILS AND PERIOD OF TRANSACTION HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED, THEREFORE, THE SAME AMOUNT OF RS.21,15,227/- WAS ADDED U/S. 69A OF THE IT ACT, ON WHICH GROUND NO. 3 ABOVE HAS BEEN RAISED. 3. ALL THE THREE ADDITIONS WERE CHALLENGED BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A). WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED IN THE A PPELLATE ORDER, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE G ENUINE PURCHASES AND COMPLETE DETAILS AND WEIGHT OF PURCHASES WERE FURNISHED. NO SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF ITA NO. 226/AGRA/2011 4 UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT. SINCE COMPLETE LIST OF THE PURCHASES WAS FILED, THEREFORE, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERI FIABLE PURCHASES IS UNJUSTIFIED, WHICH IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE STOCK REGISTER AND T HE AUDITED ACCOUNTS. AS REGARDS THE UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE LOAN OF RS.12,00,000/- BY MEANS OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AN D BOTH THE PARTIES ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND FILED THEIR CONFIRMATIONS AND D ETAILS OF BEING INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES. THE CONFIRMATION OF RS.7,00,000/- FROM T HE DEPOSITOR SHRI ANANT KUMAR GUPTA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SARVODAYA INTERNATIONAL A ND COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF IT RETURN WAS FILED. FURTHER, LOAN OF RS.5,00,000/- WAS TAKEN FROM SMT. VIMLESH GUPTA, WHICH WAS RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE. CONFIRMAT ION AND HER RETURN OF INCOME WERE FILED. SINCE THE CHEQUES WERE RECEIVED FROM TH E SAME PERSON, THEY WERE WRONGLY CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF SARVODAYA INTERN ATIONAL. AS REGARDS THE SUNDRY CREDITORS, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS OF CREDIT ORS HAVING BALANCE BELOW RS.2,00,000/-. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS WHOLLY UN JUSTIFIED. THE LD. CIT(A) FORWARDED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE DOCUMENTS TO THE AO FOR EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION AND FOR FILING THE REM AND REPORT LATEST BY 15.01.2011. THE AO, HOWEVER, DID NOT SUBMIT REMAND REPORT AND S OUGHT FURTHER TIME, WHICH WAS GRANTED TO THE AO AND EVEN THE LD. CIT(A) PERSO NALLY REMINDED THE AO TO FURNISH THE REMAND REPORT, BUT NO REMAND REPORT WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND EVEN ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE CASE RECORD WAS N OT PRODUCED BECAUSE THE SAME WAS NOT TRACEABLE. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE ABSENCE OF REMAND REPORT FINALIZED THE ITA NO. 226/AGRA/2011 5 APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON HI S RECORD, WHICH REMAINED UNCHALLENGED BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT C OMPLETE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASES ARE ON RECORD, SUPPORTED BY AUDIT REPORT, PURCHASE VOUCHERS, STOCK REGISTER AND THEREFORE, NO PURCHASE REMAINED UNVERI FIABLE. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS.18,21,062/- WAS DELETED. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER FOUND THAT CONFIRMATION FROM BOTH THE CREDITORS SHRI ANANT GUPTA AND SMT. VIMLES H GUPTA W/O SHRI ANANT GUPTA HAVE BEEN FILED ON RECORD. BOTH ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND HAVE GIVEN LOAN THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THEREFORE, THEIR IDE NTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN PROVED. ACC ORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.12,16,443/- WAS DELETED. AS REGARDS THE SUNDRY C REDITORS BELOW RS.2,00,000/-, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CO MPLETE DETAILS OF THE CREDITORS, WHICH ARE SUBJECTED TO VERIFICATION AND ONCE HE HAS ACCEPTED THE PURCHASE, THERE IS NOTHING TO TREAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AS BOGUS AND ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS.21,15,227/- HAS BEEN DELETED. THE REVENUE CHALLE NGED ALL THE THREE DELETIONS OF ADDITIONS ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE RECORD IS NOW TRAC EABLE AND HAS PRODUCED THE RECORD BEFORE US FOR EXAMINATION. THE LD. DR FILED COPY OF THE SCRUTINY REPORT OF THE AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AO WAS BUSY IN OTHER CASES, THEREFORE, NO REMAND REPORT COULD BE SUBMITTED AND NO SUFFICIENT TIME WAS GIVEN BY THE L D. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. THE LD. ITA NO. 226/AGRA/2011 6 DR SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE WRONG SECTION HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE AO FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S. 69A BY ITSELF IS NOT GROUN D TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CREDITORS HAVE ONLY FURNIS HED CONFIRMATION, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CI T(A) AND NO DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE FURNISHED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION D ELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT EXAMINE THE ISSUE HIMSELF AND DID NOT VERIFY THE FACTS, THEREFO RE, THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AND THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO T HE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THA T THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO WHICH WERE SUBJECTED TO VERI FICATION. COMPLETE DETAILS OF PURCHASES WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO, COPIES OF THE S AME ARE FILED AT PB-11 TO 44. SECTION 69A OF THE IT ACT WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE FA CTS OF THE CASE. PB-64 IS THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS AND THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED ST OCK REGISTER AS WELL AND EVEN ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE YIELD IS REASONABLE. THERE FORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE PURCHASES, THE LD. CIT(A) R IGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ENQUIRY FROM THE SELLER AND NO REMAND REPORT HAS BEEN FILED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETE D THE ADDITION. AS REGARDS THE CASH CREDITORS, HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT CASH CREDIT W AS TAKEN FROM TWO PERSONS, WHO ITA NO. 226/AGRA/2011 7 ARE RELATED. THEREFORE, WRONGLY, ONE ENTRY WAS MADE IN THE ACCOUNT OF SARVODYA INTERNATIONAL, DELHI. SINCE THE ENTRIES ARE MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A WOULD NOT APPLY. COMPLETE DETAILS ARE FILED AT PAGE 46, 48 TO 51 AND 55 TO 57 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE HAS SUB MITTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS BELOW RS.2,00,000/- WERE FILED BEF ORE THE AO (PB-52). THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCES BEFOR E THE AO AND THE SAME REMAINED UNCHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, ALL THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, MATERI AL ON RECORD AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. DURING THE C OURSE OF ARGUMENTS, THE LD. DR PRODUCED THE RECORD BEFORE US, WHICH CONTAINED THE LETTER OF THE AO FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SEEKING TIME TO FILE THE REMAND REPORT. THE AO HAS INTIMATED TO THE LD. CIT(A) THAT SINCE HE IS BUSY IN TIME BARRING CASES AND INVOLVED IN SURVEY OF IMPORTANT CASES AND RECORD IS BEING TRACED BY THE T AX ASSISTANT, THEREFORE, SUFFICIENT TIME MAY BE GRANTED FOR FILING THE REMAN D REPORT. THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE RECORD AS WELL AS GIVING SUFFICIENT TIME TO THE AO TO FILE THE REMAND REPORT HURRIEDLY PASSED THE APPELLATE ORDER ON 09.0 3.2011. THE REQUEST OF THE AO AND THAT THE RECORD WAS NOT TRACEABLE AT THE TIME O F HEARING OF APPEAL BY THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) N EITHER ALLOWED THE AO TO EXAMINE THE RECORD OR THE DOCUMENTS. FILED BY THE A SSESSEE, AT APPELLATE STAGE NOR ITA NO. 226/AGRA/2011 8 HE HIMSELF EXAMINED THE RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE AO AT THE ASSES SMENT STAGE HAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES WERE NEITHE R PRODUCED NOR WERE VERIFIABLE AND EVEN THE DETAILS OF THE BILLS DO NOT TALLY WITH THE BANK STATEMENT AND 25% PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE APPELLATE ORDER HAS, HOWEVER, MENTIONED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS OF PURCHAS ES ARE ON RECORD, WHICH ARE ALSO AUDITED. AT ONE STAGE AT PAGE 10 OF THE APPELL ATE ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT CASE RECORD IS NOT TRACEABLE, BUT WHILE DELETI NG THE ADDITION, HE HAS NOTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASES ARE ON RECORD. HE HAS NOT CLARIFIED WHETHER SUCH DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE ON HIS RECORD OR ON RECORD O F THE AO BECAUSE THE PRIMARY RECORD FOR CONSIDERATION IS THE ASSESSMENT RECORD W HICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE DELETING THE ADDI TION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSMENT RECORD, THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT VERIFY WHE THER THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AT APPELLATE STAGE WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND IN SUCH SITUATION WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES IN THE MATTER. FURTHER WITH REGARD TO THE LOAN TAKEN FROM SHRI ANANT KUMAR GUP TA AND SMT. VIMLESH GUPTA, THE AO HAS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT SUCH LOAN WAS TAKEN FROM M/S. SARVODAYA INTERNATIONAL, DELHI, WHICH FACT IS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE (PB-57), BUT AT THE APPELLATE STAGE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,00,000/- WAS GIVEN BY TWO PERSONS, I.E., SHRI ANANT KUMAR GUPTA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SARVODAY INTERNATIONAL, DELHI IN A SUM OF RS.7,00,000/- AND ITA NO. 226/AGRA/2011 9 RS.5,00,000/- WAS TAKEN FROM SMT. VIMLESH W/O SHRI ALOK KUMAR GUPTA. P.B.-51 IS THE CONFIRMATION OF SMT. VIMLESH GUPTA GIVING LO AN OF RS.5,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME HAS MENTIONED THE NAME OF HER HUSBAND AS SHRI ALOK KUMAR GUPTA, BUT THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE APPELLATE ORDER FO UND THAT LOAN OF RS.5,00,000/- HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM SMT. VIMLESH GUPTA W/O SHRI ANA NT KUMAR GUPTA, WHICH FACT IS, IN FACT, INCORRECT AND CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER AND EXAMINE THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD IN PROPER PERSPECTI VE. SUCH A DISCREPANCY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT OR BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE APPELLATE ORDER, BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS REGARD. FURTHER WITH REGARD TO SUNDRY CREDITORS IN A SUM OF RS.21,15,227/-, THE AO SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT NO DETAILS REGARDING THEIR ADDRESSES, NATURE OF TRANSA CTION, DETAILS AND PERIOD OF TRANSACTION AND THE AMOUNT INVOLVED HAVE BEEN FURNI SHED BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE ESTABLI SHED BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE FILED PB-52 WHICH ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT (A) IS THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF CREDITORS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LD. CIT(A) TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION IN A CASUAL MANNER BECAUSE PB-52 DID NOT C ONTAIN COMPLETE ADDRESSES AND DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IT ONLY CONTAINS NAME OF THE PARTY, STATION AND AMOUNT, BUT THE DETAILS REQUIRED BY THE AO HAVE NOT BEEN FU RNISHED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). FURTHER IN THE CASE OF TWO O F THE CREDITORS, ONLY CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED, BUT IN THE CASE OF O THER SUNDRY CREDITORS EVEN NO CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED TO CONFIRM THE GENUIN E TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ITA NO. 226/AGRA/2011 10 ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, MERE CONFIRMATION WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR DELETING THE ADDITION. WE RELY UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALC UTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARTI PVT. LTD. 111 ITR 951 AND CIT VS. UNITED COM MERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CO. PVT. LTD., 187 ITR 596. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRECESSION FINANCE PVT. LTD. , 208 ITR 465 ALSO HEL D THAT EVEN THE LOAN THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE UNLESS T HE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR ARE PROVED. MERE P AYMENT THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES IS NOT SACROSANCT NOR CAN IT MAKE A NON-GEN UINE TRANSACTION GENUINE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) TO DISCHARGE ONUS TO PROVE GENUINE C REDIT IN THE MATTER. INTERESTINGLY, AS NOTED ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) DID N OT WAIT FOR PRODUCTION OF RECORD BEFORE HIM AND DID NOT GIVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO THE AO TO FILE THE REMAND REPORT. THUS, IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY T O THE AO AND THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL IN A HURRIE D MANNER EVEN WITHOUT EXAMINING THE RECORDS. SINCE THE RECORD IS NOW PRODUCED BEFOR E US AND IS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE AND PROPER TO REMAND THE ENT IRE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON ALL THE ABOVE THREE GROU NDS OF APPEAL AND RESTORE ALL THE THREE GROUNDS TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE- DECIDE ALL THE THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AFRESH BY GIVING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL ALSO L OOK INTO THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 226/AGRA/2011 11 RECORD FOR FINALIZATION OF THE MATTER. WITH THESE O BSERVATIONS, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY