ITO, Bhilwara V. ANKIT KUMAR SURIYA, BHILWARA

ITA 226/JODH/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1818 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PREM PRAKASH MEENA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Commercial expediency; Onus to prove; Capital expenditure
• Section: 131; 68; 143(3); 142(1); 250; 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 ITO, Bhilwara. Vs . Ankit Kumar Suriya A-93, R.K. Colony, Bhilwara. [PAN:AUMPS1745A] (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sunil Porwal, C.A. Respondent by Shri Prem Prakash Meena, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 14.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement 04.06.2024 ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The present appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 12.05.2023 [here in after “ CIT(A)/NFAC” ] for assessment year 2020- 21, which in turn arise from the order dated 13.09.2022 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here in after “ Act”), by the AO. I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 ITO vs. Ankit Kumar Suriya 2 2. In this appeal, the revenue has raised following grounds: - “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC Delhi , Delhi was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 68,50,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,46,378/- on account of disallowance of interest paid u/s 57 of the IT Act. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,15,704/- on account of general personal expenses.” 3. Brief fact of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 on 11.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 13,26,360/-. Case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS with the reason ‘ large deduction claimed u/s 57 (non-business ITR)’. The assessee submitted all requisite details/information called by the ld. AO during assessment proceedings. The assessee was again asked to submit reply on or before 25.08.2022 of show cause notice dated 18.08.2022. In response reply was submitted on 24.08.2022. That show cause notice having same content as previously show cause notice issued on 20.03.2022. In response reply was submitted on 23.03.2022. As per record and with reference to the erroneous addition made for the unsecured loan taken by the assessee from Shaurya Gang, Rajiv Gang, Pratik Jain and Rajesh Khivesara amounting to Rs. 68,50,000/- on the only ground that there is I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 ITO vs. Ankit Kumar Suriya 3 stark difference between the returned income and loan granted by them. The assessee submitted that the identity and the genuineness of the transactions were proved and accepted and with regard to the erroneous addition for the interest payment of Rs. 13,46,378/-, the assessee submitted that the interest is paid not only on the loan taken during the year but also on the opening balance of the loan hence, the addition made presumptive basis and further with regard to the erroneous addition for expenses incurred to the tune of Rs. 3,15,704/-, the assessee submitted various expenses incurred by him in relation to unsecured loan holders through credit card payment which he claimed against interest income. The ld. AO noted that the assessee failed to discharge burden placed on him by section 68 of the Act remained unexplained accordingly a sum of Rs. 68,50,000/- treated as unexplained cash credits. Consequent there upon the interest paid this credit for an amount of Rs. 13,46,378/- was also considered as unexplained. The assessee has also claimed a sum of Rs. 3,15,704/- as general expenditure and claimed u/s 57 of the Act. Since the assessee has not submitted any details thereof the same was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 ITO vs. Ankit Kumar Suriya 4 4. Aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred an appeal the before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds of the appeal so raised, the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:- “5.1.2 In this regard, submission of the appellant, point wise and being relevant for adjudication of the impugned addition of Rs.68,50,000 is carefully considered. 5.1.3 All the facts and circumstances related to the impugned addition of Rs. 68,50,000 are duly considered. All the detailed arguments given by Ld. Counsel of the appellant firm both before Ld. A.O. through written Submission and also in these Appeal proceedings through detailed written submission are also carefully gone through. The Ld. A.O. added the unsecured loan amount of Rs. 68,50,000 in the appellants total income stating that "Plain analysis of the income reported by respective creditors vis-à-vis loan amount availed during the year shows stark difference between returned income and loan granted by the creditors. Thus, it is clear that, on the basis of submissions filed by the Assessee, identity of the creditors and genuineness of transaction gets proved but creditworthiness of creditors does not get proved. The Assessee has thus failed to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors." 5.1.4 The submission of the appellant pursued and found that he submitted copy of ITR and confirmations of creditors before the Ld. A.O. during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the appellant fully discharged his onus for unsecured loan taken during the year. Further if Ld. A.O. had any doubt regarding the creditworthiness of the lender than he holds more power than appellant to call upon the lender u/s 131 with the documents so that their creditworthiness has been established to his satisfaction. Ld. A.O. cannot reject the claim on capricious or arbitrary grounds. No addition can be made on the presumption basis, where all documents contrary to the presumption are available on records. 5.1.5 In the show Cause dated 25.08.2022 that Ld. A.O. was not considered reply submitted on 23.03.22 in which the appellant made request to Ld. A.0. if he had doubt on creditworthiness of unsecured Loan holder then he called information directly from them up to his satisfaction. So after lapsed of 5 months no information called by the Ld. A.O. from the said unsecured loan holders even complete details available in possession. Therefore Ld. A.O. not I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 ITO vs. Ankit Kumar Suriya 5 shows true spirit of natural justice even after extended time available for assessment proceeding from March 2022 to Sept. 2022. The addition made merely only on the basis of assumption /presumption basis, which is bad in law. 5.1.6 The Ld. A.O. accepted identity of creditors and genuineness of the transaction. In further if Ld. A.O. not satisfied with creditworthiness, he has to bring some contrary evidence against appellant or justified his act as empower by law that a sum credited in books of the appellant represent as income. Section 68 is a deeming provision, thus in the catena of legal cases the Hon'ble SC has held that burden of proof lies upon the Ld. A.O. if a receipt is sought to be taxed as income. In the present case it is amply clear that the department has miserably failed to discharge the burden. 5.1.7 In reliance of the above appellant placed various case laws one of them is jurisdictional High Court i.e. Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Heeralal Chaganlal Tank (2002) 257 ITR 281 (Raj) has held that where the identity of the credit is established and the creditor has confirmed the loan, no addition can be made. 5.1.8 Further, it is worth mentioned here that, in case of loan or borrowing, the judicial decisions have held that only identity and creditworthiness of creditor and genuineness of transactions for explaining the credit in the books of account is sufficient, and the onus does not extend to explaining the source of funds in the hands of the creditor. 5.1.9 In the light of such facts, I I am a afraid; there is no such occasion to confirm action of Ld. A.O. in making the impugned addition of Rs. 68,50,000 and relief has to be given to the appellant individual as he is entitled for the same. The amount of addition being only an estimate and that too without any basis is not confirmed and is directed to be deleted. Therefore, Ground no. 1 is allowed. 5.2 Ground no.2 challenges the addition of Rs. 13,46,378 on account of disallowance of interest paid on unsecured loan. This ground now adjudicated as under:- 5.2.1 The Ld. AO discussed the related addition of the impugned order dated 13.09.2022. The discussion is as under:- (B) Since, the creditors amounting to Rs.68,50,000/- are held as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, thus principal amount (loan availed I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 ITO vs. Ankit Kumar Suriya 6 during the year under consideration) becomes unexplained and interest expenditure thereon amounting to Rs.13,46,378/- itself becomes unexplained and not deductible. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 13,46,378/- being interest paid to unexplained creditors is disallowed and added to total income of the assessee. 5.1.2 In this regard, out of submission of the appellant (reproduced entirely in Para no. 4 supra), following points being relevant for adjudication of the impugned addition of Rs. 13,46,378 are carefully considered. 5.1.3 All the facts and circumstances related to the impugned addition of Rs. 13,46,378 are duly considered. Ld. A.O. disallowed the deduction of Rs.13,46,378 claimed u/s 57 for interest paid on account of the fact that the principle amount 68,50,000 becomes unexplained interest expenditure thereon amounting to Rs. 13,46,378 to unexplained creditors is disallowed. As it is clear from the discussion made above from 5.1 to 5.1.9 that the appellant gets relief in ground no. 1 as he is entitled for the same. Therefore, the interest on the same which was claimed u/s 57 is also allowed. The amount of addition being only an estimate and that too without any basis is not confirmed and is directed to be deleted. Therefore, Ground no. 2 is allowed. 5.3 Ground no. 3 challenges the addition of Rs. 3,15,704 in respect of expenses claimed against the interest income. This ground now adjudicated as under: - 5.3.1 The Ld. AO discussed the related addition in the impugned order dated 13.09.2022. The discussion is as under:- (C) During the year under consideration, as per the details filed by the assesse, the assessee has incurred Rs.3,15,704/- as general personal expenses and claimed the amount as deduction under section 57 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assesse was requested to Page 14 of 16 AUMPS1745A- ANKIT KUMAR SURIYA Α.Υ. 2020-21 ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022-23/1045577479(1) explain, justify and substantiate with relevant materials and documents the allowability the expenditure as deduction under section 57 of the Act. However, the assessee has not filed any submission regarding the issue and thus has failed to explain justify and substantiate with relevant materials, the amount of Rs. 3,15,704/- claimed as deduction under section 57. In view of the same, the amount of Rs. 3,15,704/- claimed as deduction under section 57 is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 ITO vs. Ankit Kumar Suriya 7 5.3.2 In this regard, out of submission of the appellant (reproduced entirely in Para no. 4 supra), following points being relevant for adjudication of the impugned addition of Rs. 3,15,704 are carefully considered. 5.3.3 All the facts and circumstances related to the impugned addition of Rs. 3,15,704 are duly considered. In support of this ground appellant submitted that he had maintained complete Books of Account along with bills and vouchers which was fully verifiable. The expenses incurred by him in relation to unsecured loan holders through credit card payment which was claimed against interest income. Appellant had already submitted the copy of the ledger account during assessment proceeding. The AO has not pointed out any specific discrepancy in the books of accounts maintained by the appellant. Therefore, the inference of the Ld. AO is not based on any factual support and in fact. 5.3.4 In the light of such facts, I am afraid, there is no such occasion to confirm action of Ld. A.O. in making the impugned addition of Rs. 3,15,704 and relief has to be given to the appellant individual as he is entitled for the same. The amount of addition being only an estimate and that too without any basis is not confirmed and is directed to be deleted. Therefore, Ground no. 3 is allowed.” 5. Feeling dissatisfied with the finding so recorded by the ld. CIT(A), the revenue preferred the present appeal on the grounds as reiterated herein above in para 2. The ld. DR representing the revenue has relied upon the detailed finding of the ld. AO who has after a detailed deliberation hold that the unsecured loans are not clearly justified and therefore the interest principal amount of loan has rightly been added back in the hands of the assessee. As regards the expenditure of Rs. 3,15,704/- the ld. AR of the assessee has not placed on record any details and therefore, the same is incorrectly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 ITO vs. Ankit Kumar Suriya 8 Based on this contention the ld. DR supported the finding of the ld. AO and prayed that the justice be rendered in the matter. 6. Per contra, the ld. AR of the assessee supported the finding recorded in the order of the ld. CIT(A). To support the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee also placed on record the written submission which is extracted herein below:- “The Brief of facts of case are as under:- (1) The case of assessee was selected for “LIMITED SCRUTINY” with the reason “LARGE DEDUCTIN CLAIMED” u/sec. 57 (Non business ITR). The assessee’s source of income is salary as Director, Rental & Interest Income. (2) The A.O. (NFAC) vide it’s order dated 13.09.2022 has made following addition (a) Rs. 68,50,000.00 as unexplained u/sec. 68 as assessee has failed to prove credit worthiness of cash creditor. (b) Disallowances of interest payment of Rs. 13,46,378.00 for such cash creditors. (c) Rs. 3,15,704.00 claimed as deduction u/sec. 57 (General Personal Exp.). (3) The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide it’s order u/sec. 250 of Act dated 12.05.2023 & after considering the written submission, details, facts has deleted all such addition on merit & legal aspects. (4) Now Income Tax Department is in appeal. GROUNDS OF APPEAL Ground No. 1:- Deletion of Addition of Rs. 68,50,000.00 as unexplained u/sec. 68. (1) The case of assessee was selected for “LIMITED SCRUTINY” with the only reason “LARGE DEDUCTION CLIAMED U/SEC. 57” (Non Business ITR). (2) Complete details, verification, confirmation & of desired depositors as mentioned in notices u/sec. 142(1) Act were filed to A.O. to his satisfaction (Details as per Ao’s order page 13 para 2). (3) Even after filing complete details of each & every depositor inform of CONFIRMATION, Copy of Income Tax Returns filed by them, their bank statement & “Since assessee has failed to discharge burden placed on him by section 68 of Act; hence made addition. I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 ITO vs. Ankit Kumar Suriya 9 (4) The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide it’s order dated 12.05.2023 & after considering all the evidences, submission filed vide para 5.1.6 to 5.1.8 of order page 16 has stated that “The Ld. A.O. accepted identity of creditors and genuineness of the transaction. In further if Ld. A.O. not satisfied with creditworthiness, he has to bring some contrary evidence against appellant or justified his act as empower by law that a sum credited in books of the appellant represent as income. Section 68 is a deeming provision, thus in the catena of legal cases the Hon'ble SC has held that burden of proof lies upon the Ld. A.O. if a receipt is sought to be taxed as income. In the present case it is amply clear that the department has miserably failed to discharge the burden. In reliance of the above appellant placed various case laws one of them is jurisdictional High Court i.e. Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Heeralal Chaganlal Tank (2002) 257 ITR 281 (Raj) has held that where the identity of the credit is established and the creditor has confirmed the loan, no addition can be made. Further, it is worth mentioned here that, in case of loan or borrowing, the judicial decisions have held that only identity and creditworthiness of creditor and genuineness of transactions for explaining the credit in the books of account is sufficient, and the onus does not extend to explaining the source of funds in the hands of the creditor. And accordingly has deleted the addition of Rs. 68,50,000.00 besides above & Alternatively it is a case of “LIMITED SCRUTINY” for the only issue “LARGE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/SEC. 57 (NON BUSINESS ITR)” and CBDT Vide Instruction No. 7/2014 dated 26.09.2014, 20/2015 dated 29.12.2015 & 5/2016 dated 14.07.2016 has issued specific instruction that the cases selected for “LIMITED SCRUTINY” cannot be taken for full scrutiny without prior approval of the competent authority & assessee should be intimated of same. Further vide letter F.No. DGIT (Vig.) / HQ / SI / 2017-18 dated 30.11.2017 it has been further been directed to Ao’s that they should abide by the instruction of CBDT while completing “LIMITED SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT”. By Hon’ble ITAT Similar View has been held in (Jaipur A Bench) case of Smt. Manju Kaushik JPR V/s DCIT Range – 7, JPR (ITA No. 1419/JP/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 dated 09.12.2019) Thus under these circumstances; the A.O. (NFAC) has travelled beyond powers / jurisdiction & thus even on this technical issue the ground should be struck down. Ground No. 2:- Disallowances of deduction of Rs. 13,46,378.00 claimed u/sec. 57 for interest paid. (1) The assessee has source of income of private salary as Director, Interest Income & Rental Income. Assessee has claimed interest expenses of Rs. 13,46,378.00 out of interest income. (2) The said interest paid Rs. 66,52,178.00 also includes interest paid Rs. 13,46,378.00 to the depositors of whom addition made u/sec. 68 as per ground no. 1 above (Details of interest paid / credited & depositors is Ao’s order page 13 /14). I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 ITO vs. Ankit Kumar Suriya 10 (3) The A.O. has disallowed these interest payment / expenses; for the only reason that since depositors / creditors amounting to Rs. 68,50,000.00 are held “UNEXPLAINED” u/sec. 68; the principal amount when itself held unexplained; the interest paid / payable thereon of Rs. 13,46,378.00 itself becomes unexplained & not deductible. (4) The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has allowed such interest expenses u/sec. 57 of Act for the reason that once principle amount Rs. 68,50,000.00 stands explained & addition deleted u/sec. 68 of same; the interest thereon paid / payable shall also stand allowed u/sec. 57 of Act. (5) The basic conditions to be fulfilled for claim of deduction u/sec. 57 are:- (i) The expenditure must have been incurred solely and exclusively for he purpose of earning income or making profit. (ii) The expenditure should not be in the nature of a capital expenditure. (iii) The amount in question should not be in the nature of personal expenses of the assessee. (iv) The expenditure should be incurred in the accounting year. (v) There must be a clear nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income sought to be earned (Seth R. Dalmia V. CIT(1977) 110 ITR 644 (SC) Thus the nexus between “INCOME” & “EXPENDITURE” incurred to earn such taxable income is important for the “Income From Other Sources”. The requirement u/sec. 57(iii) that the expenditure should have been incurred for the purpose of making or earning such income shows that the object of spending or the end or aim or the intention of such spending was for earning the particular income Refer – Vijay Laxmi Sugar Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (1991) 59 Taxman 22 (SC) Similarly held in other decided cases also:- (a) PCIT V/s Jubilant Energy Neep-v (P) Ltd (2019) 102 taxman.com 97 261 Taxman 194 (Delhi) Assessee during the y ear has received interest income of Rs. 69,37,247.00 (Rs. 1,05,812.00 M/s Ashok Tr. Co. + Rs. 68,31,435.00 from M/s Shree Nakoda Infrasteel (P) Ltd.) against which has claimed interest expenses of Rs. 66,52,178.00 only. Thus interest income & expenses are in correlation in terms of section 57(iii) of Act & same should be allowed on merits. Ground No. 3:- Disallowances of Rs. 3,15,704.00 in respect of General Expenses. (1) During the year certain interest payment to the extent of Rs. 3,15,704.00 were paid through credit card of HDFC by assessee which form part of total interest paid Rs. 66,52,178.00 under head “OTHER SOURCES”. (2) Complete details were furnished to A.O. in response to it’s notices to justify the allowability of such expenditure (Being actually interest paid through credit card) u/sec. 57 of Act. (3) The A.O. has simply disallowed the said expenditure for the reason “NO DETAILS FILED”; but Ld. CIT(A) has expressly mentioned in it’s order (Para 5.3.2 page 17 of order of CIT(A)) that assessee has filed complete details as sought by A.O. in response to it’s each notice & thus complete explanation & justification was there before A.O. for such claim. I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 ITO vs. Ankit Kumar Suriya 11 (4) The A.O. has no where decided / justified that such expenditure was not as per conditions laid u/sec. 57 of Act; nor has denied in “BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY” & has merely disallowed for non – filing of details; nor A.O. has pointed out any discrepancy in books of accounts or could held the depositor unexplained (for which interest paid by credit card) & thus such expenditure cannot be treated as to disallow u/sec. 57 of Act. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has also made following observation in case of Laxmi Engg. Industry (298 ITR 203) following Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of J.K. Woolen Manufacture & (72 ITR 612) by stating “Merely on the basis of suspicion expenditure cannot be disallowed. In applying commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the Assessee's business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the department. "Further, ITAT Jaipur bench in the case of Janki Corp Limited vs Department of Income Tax 601/J0DH/2013 held that "the Assessing Officer disallowed the membership &subscription expenses merely on the basis that the proper vouchers had not been maintained but no defect was pointed out and no specific instance of claim of being bogus and unreasonable or excessive had been pointed out, therefore, disallowance made by the Assessing officer was rightly deleted by the Ld CIT (A)."Hence that the disallowance made by the Ld. A.O. is unjust, unwarranted and arbitrary in blind and without any reasonable ground. Thus, the disallowance of deduction Rs.315704/-under section 57 is made on assumption basis by the Ld. A.O. is uncalled for and deserve to be deleted.” 7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record. Before us both the parties supported the order of the lower authority as favourable to them. The brief facts as emerges from the records is that the case of the assessee was selected for “LIMITED SCRUTINY” with the reason “LARGE DEDUCTIN CLAIMED” u/s section 57 (Non business ITR). The assessee’s source of income is salary as Director, Rental & Interest Income. The A.O. (NFAC) vide it’s order dated 13.09.2022 has made addition of Rs. 68,50,000 as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act as assessee has failed to prove credit I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 ITO vs. Ankit Kumar Suriya 12 worthiness of cash creditor. He also disallowed the claim of the interest paid on the aforesaid cash creditors for an amount of Rs. 13,46,378/-. The ld. AO further disallowed the claim of the assessee for an amount of Rs. 3,15,704/- claimed as deduction u/s 57 (General Personal Expenses as the assessee could not placed any details in support of the claim of the expenditure. 8. In the first appeal the ld. CIT(A) based on the submission so made by the assessee deleted the addition made u/s. 68 for the unsecured loan and interest there upon. While doing so the ld. CIT(A) noted as under : 5.1.8 Further, it is worth mentioned here that, in case of loan or borrowing, the judicial decisions have held that only identity and creditworthiness of creditor and genuineness of transactions for explaining the credit in the books of account is sufficient, and the onus does not extend to explaining the source of funds in the hands of the creditor. 5.1.9 In the light of such facts, I I am a afraid; there is no such occasion to confirm action of Ld. A.O. in making the impugned addition of Rs. 68,50,000 and relief has to be given to the appellant individual as he is entitled for the same. The amount of addition being only an estimate and that too without any basis is not confirmed and is directed to be deleted. Therefore, Ground no. 1 is allowed. The ld. DR did not find any contra submission so far as to the finding so recorded by the ld. CIT(A). The bench also noted from the order of the assessment that the assessee was asked to explain, justify and I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 ITO vs. Ankit Kumar Suriya 13 substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of creditors along with the genuineness of the transaction. In response the assessee submitted the copy of the ITR, corresponding bank statements of the creditors in question. On these details the only observation of the ld. AO that income reported by creditors via a vis loan amount shows much difference. Thus, while doing so ld.AO noted that identity and genuineness of transaction are proved but the creditworthiness of each of the creditor is not proved. Thus, when the assessee proved with the credits with the complete details, verification, confirmation & of desired depositors as mentioned in notices u/s section 142(1) Act were filed to A.O. to his satisfaction (Details as per Ao’s order page 13 para 2.1 and 2.2). The ld. CIT(A) on appreciation of the facts accepted identity of creditors and genuineness of the transaction and also noted that if Ld. A.O. not satisfied with creditworthiness, he has to bring some contrary evidence against appellant or justified his act as empower by law that a sum credited in books of the appellant represent as income. Section 68 is a deeming provision, thus in the catena of legal cases the Hon'ble SC has held that burden of proof lies upon the Ld. A.O. if a receipt is sought to be taxed as income. In the present case it is amply clear that the department has miserably failed to discharge the burden. The ld. CIT(A) also in appreciation of the judgement of the jurisdiction high court in the I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 ITO vs. Ankit Kumar Suriya 14 case of CIT v. Heeralal Chaganlal Tank (2002) 257 ITR 281 (Raj) wherein it was held that where the identity of the credit is established and the creditor has confirmed the loan, no addition can be made. Thus, we see no error in such finding of the ld. CIT(A). Based on these observation ground no. 1 raised by the revenue stands dismissed. Since we have considered the loan as genuine in ground no. 1, the addition deleted by the ld. CIT(A) on such loan being consequential in nature ground no. 2 raised by the revenue stands also dismissed. 9. Apropos to the ground no. 3 raised by the revenue the ld. AR of the assessee was asked to submit the details of the expenditure as the finding of the ld. AO is clear that the assessee has claimed the deduction u/s. 57 of the Act and the assessee has not given any details whatsoever before the ld. AO. Even the finding of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue being general and there is no finding that the assessee has submitted the details of the expenditure claimed. On being asked at the time of hearing of this appeal the ld. AR of the assessee submitted this ground of the revenue be decided based on the finding recorded in the order of the lower authority. Thus, we are of the considered view that the assessee has not placed on record the details of the expenditure and the finding of the ld. CIT(A) allowed the deduction based on the general I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 ITO vs. Ankit Kumar Suriya 15 submission of the assessee and therefore, we sustained the disallowance of Rs. 3,15,704/- which the ld. CIT(A) has allowed without bring the necessary details of the claim. Based on these observations ground no. 3 raised by the revenue is allowed. In the results the appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board. Sd/- Sd/- ((Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) Judicial Member Accountant Member *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. Ps Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order I.T.A. No. 226/Jodh/2023 ITO vs. Ankit Kumar Suriya 16