Shri Sanjay Palia, Pipariya V. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 23/IND/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 2322714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SSH H P VERMA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Depreciation
• Section: 68; 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.23/IND/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 SANJAY PALIA, BHOPAL PAN ABXPP 5864 H ... APPELLANT VS ACIT-1(1), BHOPAL ... RESPONDENT AND, ITA NO.48/IND/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL ... APPELLANT VS SANJAY PALIA, BHOPAL PAN ABXPP 5864 H ... RESPONDENT 2 ASSESSEE BY : S/SH. H.P. VERMA & ASHISH GOYAL REVENUE BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.11.2011 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THESE CROSS-APPEALS ARE BY THE REVENUE & THE ASSES SEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 6.1.2011. IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE (ITA NO.23/IND/2011) , THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) THEREBY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ASSESSING THE INCOME IN THE MANNER AS PROVIDED U/S 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE REGULAR AND PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED WHICH ARE AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING 3 RELIEF OF RS.13,39,608/- ONLY OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.20,02,052/- AND THUS CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,62,444/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NET PROFIT BY ESTIMATING THE SAME @5% WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS UNJUST, UNFAIR AND ON VERY HIGHER SIDE. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.10,49,520/- ONLY OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.13,50,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 AND THUS CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.3,00,480/- WHICH IS UNJUST, UNFAIR AND BAD IN LAW. WHEREAS, IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE (ITA NO.48/IN D/2011), THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED IN 1. DIRECTING TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% AS AGAINST 8% APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON TOTAL SALES OF RS.4,46,53,586/-. 2. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,49,520/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.13,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI H.P. VERMA ALONGWITH SHRI ASHISH GOYAL 4 (FOR ITA NO. 23/IND/2011) ON THE ISSUE OF REJECTION OF ACCOUNTS AND PROFIT RATE SUBMITTED THAT THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 3.52% WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ADOPTED THE SAME AT 8% AND THE SAME WAS REDUCED TO 5% BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE LEARNED SR. DR CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN PUT TO FIN ALITY BY THE TRIBUNAL BY UPHOLDING THE PROFIT RATE OF 6% FOR WHI CH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGES 33 TO 39 OF THE PAPE R BOOK. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21 ST APRIL, 2011 (ITA NO. 383 AND 410/IND/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) :- THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVEN UE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 27.6 .2008. 2. IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THE FIRST GROUND I S THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE INVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) BY R EJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ASSESSING THE INCOME IN THE M ANNER AS PROVIDED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. DURING HEARING, THE L EARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES ASSERTED THAT ON THIS ISSUE, THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED IN GROUP CASE OF R.C. CONSTRUCTION VS. ADDITIONAL CIT (ITA NOS.38 2 AND 409/IND/2008). 5 3. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS SINCE IN THE CASE OF R.C. CONSTRUCTION (SUPRA) ON THIS ISSUE, WE HAVE DISMISS ED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SINCE THE FACTS AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS ID ENTICAL, ON THE SAME REASONING, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 4. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO SUSTAINING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.13,67,908/- BY ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT RATE AT 5% WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITI ON OF RS.13,58,580/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.27,26,491/ - BY TAKING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS AFTER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 45(3) OF THE ACT. 5. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR APPLICATION OF PROFIT RATE AT 8% ESPECIALLY WHEN DEPRECIATION INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY FROM RS. 6,58,880/- TO RS. 18,42,865/- WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY T HE DEPARTMENT. A PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT THE PROFIT RATE IS VERY REASONABLE COMPARED TO EARLIER YEARS AND THERE IS T HREE TIMES INCREASE IN TURNOVER FROM RS. 1.65 CRORES TO RS. 4. 52 CRORES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ABOUT 50% OF THE WORK WAS D ONE ON SUB-CONTRACT BASIS. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSIO N, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE PROFIT RATE OF EARLIER YE ARS :- A.Y. TURNOVER N.P. BEFORE DEPRECIATION DEPRECIATION NP AFTER DEPRECIATION NP RATIO AFTER DEPRECIATION AMOUNT RATE 2003-04 92,47,272 6,07,945 6.57 1,58,943 4,49,002 4 .86% 2004-05 1,64,89,379 11,73,368 7.12% 6,58,880 5,14,4 88 3.12% 2005-06 (RELEVANT 4,52,86,042 27,89,257 6.16% 18,42,865 9,46,392 2.09 % IF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS IS ANALYSED, IT IS SEEN TH AT THOUGH THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS CO NSIDERED THE DISTANCE OF VARIOUS PLACES WHERE THE WORK WAS E XECUTED FROM THE HEAD OFFICE WHICH IS ABOUT 3 TO 40 KMS IN THE CASE OF WORK DONE BY SELF AND IN THE CASE OF SUB-CONTRACTS IT IS ALSO BETWEEN 3 TO 40 KMS AND ABOUT 50% AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE NEARLY 51% OF THE WORK ON SUB-CONTRACT WHERE T HE MARGIN OF PROFIT IS BOUND TO DECREASE. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NO T SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS/COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DUE TO THE REASON, THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT WERE RIGHTLY INVOKED. IN THE ABSE NCE OF PRODUCTION OF COMPLETE DETAILS OR MAINTENANCE OF PA RT REPORT, THE 6 ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE NET PROFIT RATE AT AG AINST 2.9% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND REDUCED TO 5% BY THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS AT BOTH THE STAGES THAT IT WAS BASED ON EST IMATION. THE TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,52,86,042/-. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTAL ITY OF FACTS AND THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE LEARNED RESPECTIVE CO UNSELS, IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THE NET PROFIT RA TE IS INCREASED TO 6% IN PLACE OF 5% MAINTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND 8% ADOPTED BY THE LEARN ED ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF REVENU E IS PARTLY ALLOWED. BY THIS ADOPTION, THE IDENTICAL GROUND RAI SED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISPOSED OF ACCORDING LY. IN THE AFORESAID ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAS APPLIED THE NET PROFIT RATE FROM 6%. AGAINST THE ADOPTION OF 8% BY THE LEA RNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND 5% BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). NEITHER ANY CONTRARY FACTS NOR ANY CONTRARY DECISION WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY EITHER SIDE. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT TH E NET PROFIT RATE AT 6%, THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE ARE DISPOSED OF IN THE AFORESAID MANNER. 4. THE NEXT GROUND I.E. GROUND NO. 3 PERTAINS TO CO NFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,480/- BY LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF R S. 13,50,000/- AND THUS ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS. 10,49,5 20/- MADE ON 7 ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE A CT. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHEN A PARTICULAR PROFIT RATE HAS BEEN APPLIED, THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE ADDITION IS REQUIRED FOR WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE DECISION IN CIT V. AGARWAL ENGG. COMPANY; 302 ITR 2 46 (P&H). A PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT EVIDENCE WAS PR ODUCED FOR CASH CREDIT FOR WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE CREDITOR NOS. 1 AND 7 NAMELY SHRI BHAGWATIPRASAD AND SHRI M. N. RAGHUVANSHI, RESPECTIVELY ALONG WITH PAGE 48 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH CHEQUE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED SR. DR STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IM PUGNED ORDER BY SUBMITTING THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM CIVI L CONTRACT WORK. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT AT TH E RATE OF 5% AND ALLOWED THE RELIEF OF RS.10,49,520/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF 8 RS.13,50,000/- AND THUS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF R S.3,00,480/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF TH E ACT. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE SUMMARISING HEREUNDER THE FACTS ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH CASH CREDITS . S.NO . NAME DISALLOWE D BY LD. A.O.(RS.) CONFIRME D BY LD. CIT(A) (RS.) DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) (RS.) EVIDENCES P.B. REF REMARKS 1 BHAGWATI PRASAD 2,00,000 49,520 1,50,480 I. CONFIRMATION LETTER II.COPY OF ACCOUNT III COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT IV.COPY OF SALE BILL OF AGICULTURAL PRODUCE V.COPY OF PENSION CERTIFICATE VI. COPY OF STATEMENT ON OATH 42 43 44-47 48-50 51-56 57-58 LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT ONLY SALE BILL OF AGRICULTUR AL PRODUCE FOR RS. 49,520 WERE GIVEN. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE MORE RECEIPT WAS GIVEN PB 50. ALSO CREDITOR GOT COMMUTAT ION OF PENSION RS. 94,266. P.B. 55 2 CHARAN PATEL 2,00,000 - 2,00,000 I. CONFIRMATION L ETTER II.COPY OF ACCOUNT III. COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT IV. COPY OF SALE BILL OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE V. COPY OF LAND DOCUMENTS VI. COPY OF STATEMENT ON OATH 59 60 61 62 63-65 66-67 3. KAMAL RAGHUWANSHI 2,00,000 - 2,00,000. I. CONFIRMATION LETTER II.COPY OF ACCOUNT III. COPY OF SALE BILL OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IV. COPY OF LAND DOCUMENTS V. COPY OF STATEMENT ON OATH 68-69 70 71 72-73 74-75 9 4. KESHAV SINGH PATEL 2,00,000 - 2,00,000 I. CONFIRMATION LETTER II COPY OF ACCOUNT III.COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT IV. COPY OF SALE BILL OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE V. COPY OF LAND DOCUMENTS VI. COPY OF STATEMENT ON OATH. 76 77 78 79-80 82-86 88-89 5 MAHESH SHUKL.A 2,00,000 2,00,000 I. CONFIRMATION LETTER II.COPY OF ACCOUNT III. COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT IV. COPY OF SALE BILL OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE V. COPY OF LAND DOCUMENTS VI. COPY OF STATEMENT ON OATH 91 92 93 94 95-98 99-100 6. PHOOL SINGH RAJPUT 2,00,000 - 2,00,000 I. CONFIRMATION LETTER II.COPY OF ACCOUNT III. COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT IV. COPY OF SALE BILL OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE V. COPY OF LAND DOCUMENTS VI. COPY OF STATEMENT ON OATH 103 104 105-106 107 108-109 111-113 7. M.L. RAGHUVANSHI 1,50,000 1,50,000 - I. CONFIRMATION LETTER II. COPY OF ACCOUNT III.COPY OF LAND DOCUMENTS IV. COPY OF STATEMENT ON OATH 114 115 116-117 118 LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT NO PROOF OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTUR AL PRODUCE WAS GIVEN. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE NET PROFIT RATE WAS ADOPTED AT 8% BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AGAI NST 3.52% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ULTIMATELY THE TRIBUNA L ADOPTED THE SAME AT 6%, WHICH HAS REACHED FINALITY AS NO CO NTRARY DECISION WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY EITHER SIDE. 10 6. EVEN OTHERWISE, IF THE FACTS NARRATED IN THE AFO RESAID CHART ARE ANALYSED, WE FIND THAT THE REMAINING ADDITION P ERTAINS TO SHRI BHAGWATIPRASAD (SR. NO. 1 IN THE AFORESAID CHA RT) AND SHRI M.L. RAGHUVANSHI (SR. NO. 7). WE FIND THAT CONFIRMA TION LETTER (PAGE 42), COPY OF ACCOUNT (PAGE 43), COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT (PAGES 44 TO 47), COPY OF SALE BILL OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (PAGES 48 TO 50), COPY OF PENSION CERTIFICATE (PAGES 51 TO 56|, COPY OF STATEMENT ON OATH (PAGES 57 TO 58) OF SHRI BHAGWATI PRASAD SHUKLA WERE DULY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE STAT EMENT RECORDED ON OATH ON 4.11.2008 IS ANALYSED IN SPECIF IC REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 9 TO 11 IT WAS REPLIED AND AFFIRMED AS UNDER :- Q. NO.9 HOW DO YOU KNOW MR. SANJAY PALIA AND HAVE YOU EVER GIVEN HIM ANY LOAN OR ADVANCE. IF YES KINDLY SPECIFY THE PURPOSE, TENURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH LOAN/ADVANCE. ANS. MR. SANJAY PALIA IS MY NEPHEW. I GAVE HIM RS. 2,00,000/- AS LOAN AND THE SAME WAS FUNDED PARTIALLY BY AMOUNT RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT AND PARTIALLY BY AMOUNT SAVED FROM FARMING INCOME Q. NO. 10 WHEN WAS THE SAID LOAN GIVEN TO WHOM AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE ? WHEN WAS DUE TO BE REPAID ? IF IT WAS INTEREST FREE, SPECIFY REASONS. FROMWHERE DID YOU GET THIS AMOUNT AND IF THE SAME WAS NOT TAKEN BACK, 11 SPECIFY REASONS FOR THIS. THE SAID LOAN WAS GIVEN ON WHOSE REQUIRE. ANS. THE ABOVE MENTIONED PERSON IS MY RELATIVE. HE WAS IN NEED OF MONEY SO I HELPED HIM. THE LOAN IS INTEREST FREE AND UNCONDITIONAL. FURTHER, NO TIME LIMIT WAS GIVEN FOR ITS REPAYMENT. Q. NO. 11 APART FROM THE ABOVEMENTIONED LOAN HAVE YOU EVER GIVEN/RECEIVED ANY LOAN ? IF YES, MENTION FULL DETAILS REGARDING THE SAME. ANS. APART FROM SANJAY PALIA, I HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY LOAN TO ANY PERSON. THE AFORESAID STATEMENT TENDERED BY SHRI BHAGWATIPR ASAD CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS DULY CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION, THEREFORE, UNDER THE AFO REMENTIONED FACTS, NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE. THIS VIEW IS FURTHER FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION FROM HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN METACHEM INDUSTRIES LI MITED; 245 ITR 160 (M.P.) AND UMESH ELECTRICALS; 131 ITD 127 ( AGRA) (TM). SO FAR AS THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF SHRI M. L. RAGHUVANSHI IS CONCERNED, THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINE D MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT NO PROOF OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGR ICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS PRODUCED. WE FIND THAT IN THE STATEMEN T RECORDED BY THE DEPARTMENT, MR. RAGHUVANSHI ON 4.11.2008 HAS CLEARLY 12 TENDERED THAT HE WAS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME FRO M 15 ACRES OF LAND. IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 8 HE HAS TENDERE D THAT HE IS HAVING NET INCOME OF ABOUT RS. 1 LAC FROM AGRICULTU RE. HE FURTHER AFFIRMED (REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 9) THAT HE WAS HAVING INDIVIDUAL GOOD RELATIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE NAMELY SANJAY PALIA AND HE GAVE RS. 1,50,000/- AND THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN OUT OF SAVINGS FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN REPLY T O QUESTION NO. 10 HE FURTHER TENDERED THAT THE LOAN WAS GIVEN IN 2 005 WITHOUT INTEREST AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED SO FAR, MEANING THEREBY, SHRI RAGHUVANSHI DULY CONFIRMED THE LOAN A LONG WITH ITS SOURCE, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED ESPE CIALLY WHEN THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF LOAN AND SOURCE HAVE B EEN EXPLAINED, THEREFORE, FROM THIS ANGLE ALSO THERE IS MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 7. THE REVENUE VIDE GROUND NO. 2 HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.10,49,520/- OUT OF T HE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 13,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. SINCE WE HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE AD DITION, 13 THEREFORE, IT HAS REMAINED FOR ACADEMIC INTEREST ON LY AND, THEREFORE, DOES NOT SURVIVE. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN IN THE PRESENC E OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 21.11.2011. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21 .11.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE DN/-