ACIT, UDAIPUR V. M/s. Mateshwari Indrani Contractor Pvt. Ltd., UDAIPUR

ITA 227/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7843 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VARIOUS GOVERNMENT S FILE
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business expenditure; Onus to prove
• Section: 37; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 22 7 / JU/ 20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 11 THE A.C.I.T VS. M/S MAHESHWARI INDRANI CONTRACTORS CIRCLE - 1 PVT. LTD, 1, BEHIND DEBARI PETROL PUMP UDAIPUR . NEAR ARA MACHINE, DEBARI, UDAIPUR PAN NO. AAECM 2334 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE B Y : SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN DEPARTMENT B Y : SHRI N.A. JOSHI , DR DATE OF H EARING : 0 1 . 0 9 .201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 . 1 0 . 201 4 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA , J .M. TH IS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) , UDAIPUR , DATED 15 . 0 1 .20 1 4 . 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMERG ING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF COLLECTION OF SALES TAX, ROYALTY, MINING IN TERMS OF CONTRACT AWARDED BY THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN ON 12.1 0.2010 FOR THIS YEAR DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.82,23,460/ - . AS AGAINST THIS RETURNED INCOME THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1,39,33,650/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: - 1) OF RS. 12,53,375/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAYMENT (AS PER PARA 3 OF THE ORDER) 2) OF RS. 19,56,816/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING ADDITIONS (AS PER PARA 4 OF THE ORDER) 3) OF RS. 25,00,000/ - U/S. 68 OF THE ACT (AS DISCUSSED IN PA RA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) 2 .1 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) , WHO HAS DELETED ADDITION OF RS. 12,53,375/ - ; HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,56,815/ - TO RS. 3,68,889/ - ; AND HAS DELETED ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - FROM THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,00,000/ - . T HE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ABOVE RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS REVENUES APPEAL. IT WAS IN F O R M ED BY LEARNED A.R. SHRI JAIN C.A. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE SUSTAINED AD DITION. 3 GROUNDS IN REVENUES APPEAL: - ON THE FACTS AND IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN: - 1) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,53,375/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PENAL INTEREST PAID ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF INSTALLMENTS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE INTEREST PAID ON DELAYED INSTALLMENT IS PENAL IN NATURE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME - TAX ACT PENALTY COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 2) RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON UNSECURED L O ANS FROM RS. 19,56,815/ - TO RS. 3,68,889/ - ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT UNSECURED LOAN HAVE BEEN HELD AS EXPLAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLAN A TION AND FAILED TO JUSTIFY THAT THE SAID INTEREST EXPENSES HAVE BEEN IN C U R RED WHOL LY & EXCLUSIVE FOR THE PURP O S E OF ITS BUSINESS. 3) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 ,00,000/ - (RS. 4,00 , 0 0 0/ - + RS. 1,00,000/ - ) MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN TO PROVE THE THREE COND ITIONS IN SATISFACTORY MANNER TO THE A.O. IN LIGHT OF DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE O F SUMATI DAY AL VS. CIT (1995) REPORTED IN 214 ITR 801. 4 THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADDITIONAL, AMEND, ALTER, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY OR ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS O F APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE RECORD. AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE OPENING OF THE HEARI NG OF THIS APPEAL, LEARNED A.R SHRI RAJE NDRA JAIN SPRANG UP AND ASSERTED THA T ALL THE ISSUES RAISE D IN THIS APPEAL STAND COVERED IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ONE ORDER OR THE OTHER. THE LEARNED A.R. WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A SMALL CHART IN HAND DEPICT THE RELEVANT GROUND ALONG WITH THE ORDER UNDER WHICH IT IS COVERED AND TO DISCUSS WITH LEARNED D.R. BOTH PARTIES HAVE CONCURRED IN THIS SUBMISSION. THE CHART PRODUCED HAS BEEN EXAMINED. 2.3 THE FACTS OF THE FIRST GROUND ARE THAT D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM O F RS. 12,53,375/ - IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST ON LATE PAYMENT OF INSTALLMENTS OF THE COLLECTION. WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE CLAIM, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO COLLE CT ROYALTY, SALES - TAX ETC. ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT S AND AS PER THE TERMS OF CONTRACT . T HE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DEPOSIT A MINIMUM 5 AMOUNT OF COLLECTION ON WEEKLY/FORTNIGHTLY/MONTHLY BASIS AS DEFINED IN THE CONTRACT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT AS TO WHETHER THE COLLECTION IS LESS THAN THE MINIMUM AMOUNT FIXED FOR DEPOSITING AS PER THE CONTRACT. IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO DEPOSIT THE MINIMUM AMOUNT AS DEFINED IN THE CONTRACT THEN THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST ON SUCH SHORT/DELAYED PAYMENT S WHICH IS A ROUTINE AND REGULAR FEATURE/NATURE OF THE BUSINESS TRANSACTION AND IT IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BEING NOT IN THE NATURE OF PENALTY. IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE DECISION S OF THE H ON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NATRAJ (1990) 185 ITR (KER.) AND CIT VS. T.M. CHACKO & PARTNERS (1978) 115 ITR 40 (KER.). IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE INTEREST PAYMENTS OF RS. 12,53,375 / - MAY BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE . A CCORDING TO HIM, THE INTEREST PAYMENTS CLAIMED ARE NOTHING BUT PENAL INTEREST . ON ACCOUNT OF NON FULFILLMENT OF A CONDITION IMPOSED IN THE CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS. AS PER THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS A DELAY IN COLLECTION OF SALES - TAX, ROYALTY ETC. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE A.O. DISALLOWED INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.12,53,375/ - AND HAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE 6 2.3 IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A), THE LD. A.R MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS. ' THE NATURE OF ASSESSEE COMPANYS BUSINESS IS TO COLLECT ROYALTY, SALES TAX ETC. ON BEHALF OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ON THE TERMS OF THE WORK CONTRACT. COPY OF ONE SUCH WORK ORDER IS ENCLOSED AS PER ANN EXURE - 1 AS PER PARA NO. 4 PAGE NO. 13 OF THE WORK ORDER, THE FOLLOWING TERMS HAVE BEEN INSERTED AS PART OF EXECUTION OF WORK. AS PER THE TERMS OF THE WORKS CONTRACT, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS TO DEPOSIT A CERTAIN MINIMUM AMOUNT WEEKLY/ FORTNIGHTLY/ MONTHLY AS PROVIDED IN THE WORK ORDER, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT, WHETHER COLLECTION DURING THIS PERIOD IS LESS THAN THE FIXED INSTALLMENT. THE COLLECTION OF REVENUE DEPENDS ON THE PASSING OF VEHICLES/ TRANSPORT CARRYING MATERIAL THROUGH TOLL NAKA OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. MANY TIMES DUE TO SEASONAL NATURE LIKE IN RAINY SEASON, TRANSPORT STRIKE ETC. THE COLLECTION OF ROYALTY/ SALES TAX MAY BE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR PAYMENT OF INSTALLMENT. ON DELAYED PAYMENT, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PAY INTEREST AT PRE SCRIBED RATE AS PER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT/ WORK ORDER. THIS PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS ROUTINE AND REGULAR FEATURE/ NATURAL COURSE OF EXECUTION OF THE BUSINESS TRANSACTION. IT IS NOT A GOVT, PENALTY OF ANY DEFAULT AND THEREFORE NOT COVERED UNDER DISALLOWAN CE NATURE OF 7 EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE INCOME TAX, 1961. THIS PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS TOWARDS FULFILLMENT OF ONE OF THE MANY CONDITIONS OF THE WORK ORDER. THE WORK ORDER IN NORMALLY GRANTED FOR 1 YEAR OR 2 YEARS PERIOD. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT DURING 12 MONTHS PERIOD, THERE MAY BE LOW COLLECTION OF CASH ON TOLL NAKA IN RAINY SEASONS THAN OTHER SEASONS. EVEN IN SUMMERS, COLLECTIONS OF SALES TAX/ ROYALTY MAY FLUCTUATE RESULTING IN LOW COLLECTION. HENCE, LIABILITY OF INTEREST PAYMENT MAY ARISE ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF INSTALLMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY STATUTORY DEFAULT. THEREFORE, SUCH INTEREST IS PURELY A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND LAWFULLY ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ABOVE FACTS AND WRONGLY DISAL LOWED THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE TREATING THE SAME AS PENAL IN NATURE. IN SIMILAR MATTER OF PREVIOUS AY 2009 - 10, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE BENCH OF ITAT, JODHPUR IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE ORDER IN ITA NO . 57/J U /2013 DTD 29 .08.2013 IS SUBMITTED AS PER ANNEXURE - 2. THERE ARE OTHER CITATIONS IN SUPPORTS ASSESSEES CONTENTION IN CIT V/S K. NATARAJAN (1990) 185 ITR 352 (KER.) AND CIT V/S T.M. CHACKO & PARTNERS (1978) 115 ITR 40 (KER.), THE INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF INSTALL MENT DUE TO GOVERNMENT UNDER A CONTRACT HAS BEEN DECIDED AS ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 8 RELIEF DEMANDED THEREFORE, THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 12,53,375/ - IS AGAINST THE LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS AND THE AOS ORDER IN THIS REGARD IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED.' 2.4 AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS VIS - - VIS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , T HE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THIS ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT RENDERED FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 ON SIMILAR FACTS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THUS: - I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ALONGWITH THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . FROM THE RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE UNDER THE SIMILAR GROUND WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT (A) VIDE ORDE R DATED 29.11.2012 . HOWEVER, IN FURTHER APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THIS CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE, THE HONOURABLE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT HAS DELETED THE CONFIRMED DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST VIDE THEIR ORDER IN ITA NO. 57/JDH/2013 DATED 29.08.2013. AS THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THIS DECISION BEING SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE ASSTT. YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 12,53,375 IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED AND I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWE D. 9 2. 5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT WAS STATED BY THE LD. A.R AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE HEARING OF T HIS APPEAL THAT GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 STAND COVERED IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR AND FOR GRO U N D NO. (3) RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON LD. CIT(A)S ORDER [PARA 4.4]. 2. 6 PER CONTRA, THE LD. SR. D.R. HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O AND HAS REPEATED THE REASONS TAKEN BY HIM TO MAKE RESPECTIVE ADDITIONS. 2. 7 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS, WE ARE CONVIN CED THAT GROUND NO. 1 RELATING TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 12,53,375/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PENAL INTEREST PAID ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF INSTALLMENTS STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF JODHPUR BENCH RENDERED IN ITA NO. 57/JU/2013 DATED 29.08.2013 VIDE ITS PAGE NO. 6 AND PARA 3. COPY OF ORDER IS ON RECORD. PARA 3 AT PAGE 6 OF THE ORDER READS AS UNDER: WE HAVE FOUND THAT THERE IS A STIPULATION IN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND THE 10 DEPARTMENTS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL COL LECT SALES TAX / ROYALTY AND DEPOSIT THE SAME ON RECURRING BASIS AND IN CASE OF FAILURE TO DO SO A SETTLED INTEREST HAS TO BE PAID THEREON. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT MAKE TIMELY PAYMENT DUE TO THE REASONS STATED ABOVE. THEREFORE, THIS PAYMENT IS AS THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT AND CANNOT BE DUBBED AS A PENAL PAYMENT. THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BENEFIT IN MAKING PAYMENT OF INTEREST. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THIS MUCH INTEREST AMOUNT. RATHER THIS IS AN ACCEPTED FACT. THE PAYMENT IS MADE TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS REALLY PAID INTEREST UNDER AN AGREEMENT TO EARN INCOME IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED U/S 37 OF THE ACT. OUR THIS VIEW IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE SIMILAR VIEW TAKEN BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHALAKS HMI SUGAR MILLS CO. VS. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 429 (SC). THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT PAYMENT OF INTEREST MADE UNDER A CONTRACT THE DEDUCTION HAS TO BE ALLOWED. NO CONTRARY DECISIONS HAVE BEEN CITED BY LD. D.R. THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF HONBLE APEX COURT AND THAT OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT. WE ALLOW THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY ALLOWING GROUND NO. (1) AND (2) OF THIS APPEAL. THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE TRIBUNAL ORDER AND WH I CH FACT COULD NOT SUCCESSFULLY CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. D.R, WE CANNOT ALLOW GROUND NO. 1 OF THIS APPEAL AND HENCE DISMISSED THE SAME. 11 3. THE FACTS OF GROUND NO. 2 ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST PAYMENTS ON UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 19,56,815/ - WHICH REMAINED UNEXP LAINED IN HIS VIEW AND WAS ADDED IN ASSESSEES HANDS. IN CONTRAST, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TREATED THESE AS GENUINE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15,87,926/ - AND HAS SUSTAINED THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS. 3,68,889/ - . THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND HAS CHALLENGED THE IM PUGNED DELETION. 3.1 BEFORE US BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL. AGAIN, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THIS ISSUE ALSO ST ANDS COV E RED IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT RELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A). THE FOLLOWING CHART EXPLAIN THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES WHO HA VE GIVEN UNSECURED LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE THE AMOUNTS OF INTEREST PAID THEREON AND THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE WHICH THE RESPECTIVE CREDITS HAVE BEEN HELD AS GENUINE. S.NO. NAME OF THE CREDITOR AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID T.O. VIDE WHICH ORDER PASSED IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE 1 ANKCHAD ASSOCIATE 6,49,111/ - PARA 3.3 OF T.O. IN ITA NO.62/JU/2013 DATED 27/09/2013 2 AZAD KUNWAR CHUNDAWAT 1,02,120/ - PARA 3.4 OF ITA NO. 250/JU/2012 DATE 28/06/2013 3 GRAPHITECH EXIM PVT. LTD. 6,89,046/ - PARA 3.5 OF ORDR DATE D 28/06/2013 12 4 FATEH SINGH JHALA 1,47,649/ - T.O. IN ITA NO. 250/JU/2012 DATED 28/06/2013 (PARA 3.5) TOTAL 15,87,926/ - 3.2 BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE CONCURRED ON THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION. THE COPIES OF THE TRIBUNAL O RDERS ARE ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK . WE HAVE TREADED THROUGH THESE ORDERS AND HAVE FOUND THE ABOVE POSITION AS CORRECT. TO THE ABOVE EXTENT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDERS, WE CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CI T(A) . AS A RESULT, GROUND NO. (2) OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. THE FACTS APROPOS GROUND NO. (3) OF THE APPEAL ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAI MED TO HAVE TAKEN LOANS TOTALING TO RS. 25,00,000/ - FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: - 1. SHRI DURGA SHANKER RS. 20,00,000/ - 2. SHRI AJIT SINGH SHEKHAWAT RS. 04,00,000/ - 3. MAA IDANA MARBLES RS. 01,00,000/ - TOTAL RS. 25,00,000/ - THE ABOVE LOANS WE RE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. AS EXPLAINED. THEREFORE, HE HAS ADDED RS. 25 LAKHS IN ASSESSEES HANDS U/S. 13 68 OF THE ACT. CONTRARY TO THIS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION QUA SHRI AJIT SINGH SHEKHAWAT OF RS. 4 LAKH AND MAA IDANA MARBLES OF RS. 1 LAK H, TOTALING TO RS. 5 LAKHS. AGAIN S T THIS DELETION THE REVENUE CAM E IN THIS APPEAL . 4.1 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ENTIRE RECORD. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THIS DELETION IS ALSO IN ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE IDENTI T Y AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF BOTH THESE CASH CREDITORS. THE GENUIN I TY OF THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE ALSO FOUND TO BE ESTABLISHED. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED DELETION AND DISMISS GROUND NO. (3 ) OF THE APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESU LT, THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IN ITA NO. 227 /JU/2014 STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 08 TH OCTOBER , 2014. SD/ - SD/ - (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM B ER DATED : 08 TH OCTOBER , 201 4 VL/ - 14 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT BY ORDER 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR S ENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, JODHPUR