The ITO, Ward-1(3), JAMNAGAR V. Shri Ranchhodbhai Jivabhai Nakhva, JAMNAGAR

ITA 246/RJT/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 24624914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VILAS V SHINDE
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASHANT MAHARISHI CA
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. .. .. BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA JM AND SHRI D. K. S RIVASTAVA AM ITA NO. 246/RJT/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR. ( / APPELLANT) SHRI RANCHHODBHAI JIVABHAI NAKHVA PROP. RANCHHODBHAI JIVABHAI, K-1-76/1, GIDC, STU, JAMNAGAR. PAN : AAWPN9693A / RESPONDENT ! '# / REVENUE BY SHRI VILAS V. SHINDE, DR $% ! '# / ASSESSEE BY SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, CA ' & ' %( / DATE OF HEARING 31-07-2013 ) %( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30-08-2013 / ORDER .. , / T. K. SHARMA, J. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30-03-2011 OF LD. CIT (A), JAMNAGAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN TRADING IN IRON SCRAP. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDE R APPEAL, HE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 09-10-2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2 ,07,840/-. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED DEPOSITS OF RS.5,00,000/- EACH IN TH E NAME OF FOLLOWING TWO DEPOSITORS:- NAME OF DEPOSITOR DATE OF DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT TOTAL AMOUNT DEPOSIT 1 SHRI VAIBHAV JAYENNDRA SHAH 13/4/2006 17/4/2006 300000 200000 500000 2. MITAL JAYENDRA SHAH 17/4/2006 500000 500000 4. THE AO RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI VAIBHAV J. SHAH ON 23-11-2009 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BY HIM IN PARA-3.2 OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. FURTHER, MISS MITAL J. SHAH ALSO FURNISHED A SELF DEPOSITION STAT EMENT IN WHICH SHE ADMITTED THAT HER FATHER HAS RECEIVED CASH OF RS.5,00,000/- FROM SUBHASHBHAI, SON OF SHRI RANCHHOD J. NAKHAWA-THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AND THE SA ME CASH WAS DEPOSITED ITA 246-2011 2 IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AND A CHEQUE OF RS.5,00,000/- I SSUED TO SHRI RANCHHOD J. NAKHWA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED THE EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN PARA-4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TH EREAFTER, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PARAS-5 TO 7 WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 5. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDE RED. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE PA NUMBERS OF THE PARTIE S AND PRODUCED ONE OF THEM FOR VERIFICATION. HENCE SO FAR AS THE IDENT ITY OF THE PARTIES IS CONCERNED THERE IS NO DOUBT SO FAR AS THE CAPACITY OF THE LENDER OF GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION ARE CONCERNED, THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOANS WERE TAKEN FROM THE PARTIES THROUGH CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF BANK PASSBOOKS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHERE THE ENTRIES OF LOAN WERE GIVEN AND STATED THAT THE PASSBOOKS SHOW ADEQUATE BALANCE ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF CHEQUES. EARLIER, ON VERIFICAT ION OF THE PASSBOOK PRODUCED BY EACH PARTY, IT WAS FOUND THAT IN EACH C ASE OF THE DEPOSITOR, THE BANK BALANCE BEFORE ISSUE OF CHEQUE)S) FOR LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS AFTER THE ENCASHMENT OF THE CHEQUE(S) OF TH E LOANS BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF RS.500, A VERY NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT. T HE BANK BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF EACH DEPOSITOR WAS GENERATED BY WAY OF DEPOSITING CASH IN THE RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITO R. THE SOURCE OF THE CASH SO DEPOSITED IN THE RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS O F THE DEPOSITOR, AS EXPLAINED BY CASH DEPOSITOR IN THEIR STATEMENTS REC ORDED U/S.131 AND IN HER SELF DEPOSITION STATEMENT, THAT THE CASH DEPOSI TED IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT WERE IN FACT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE ONL Y. THE MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED FOR GENERATING THE ENOUGH BANK BAL ANCE FOR ISSUE OF THE CHEQUE(S) WAS THAT THE DEPOSITORS WERE FIRST RECEIV E IT FROM THE ASSESSEE, AND THEN ISSUES THE CHEQUES OF THE AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE CASH RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE TO HIM. THUS THE DEPOSITORS HAD N O CAPACITY TO ADVANCE THE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE LOANS ADVANCED TO THE DEPOSITORS WERE IN FACT REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEES OWN MONEY. THE COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED ON THE DEPOSITORS WERE COUNTER SIGNED BY THE C A OF THE ASSESSEE AS WITNESS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO INF ORMED THAT STATEMENTS OF THE DEPOSITORS WERE EXPOSING THE CRED ITS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAMES OF THE TWO DEPOS ITORS WERE REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEES OWN MONEY ROUTED THROU GH BANK CHANNEL AND THE DEPOSITORS HAD NO CAPACITY TO ADVANCE SUCH A BIG AMOUNT. THUS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT THE D EPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.10,00,000/- SHOWN IN THE NAMES OF THESE TWO PART IES ARE NON GENUINE IS REJECTED AND ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME AS U NEXPLAINED. 6. AS ALREADY MENTIONED ABOVE, THE ISSUE INVOLVED W AS OF PROVING BY THE ASSESSEE OR CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. HOWEVER, EVE N AFTER CONFESSION OF THE DEPOSITORS, WHO THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED AS HI S WITNESS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REBUT THEIR CONFESSION NOR HAS A VAILED OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINATION. ON THE CONTRARY, C A OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS SIGNED THE STATEMENT WITH THE REMARK BEFORE ME. 6.1 IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 68 OF THE ACT IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE IT IS PRIMA FACIA REFLECTS THAT THE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SATISFACT ORILY EXPLAIN IT WITH REGARDS TO THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDIT, FAILING WHICH ARE OF AN INCOME NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHARGE. THE JUDGMENT OF THE S UPREME COURT IN A. GOVINDARAJULY MADALIAR VS. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) REFLECTS THIS POSITION. SECTION 68 CONSTITUTES A CHARGING PROVISI ON WHICH APPLIES WHEN THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION DOES NOT RENDER ANY EXPL ANATION. SECTION 68 PROVIDES THAT AO MAY BRING TO CHARGE A SUM AS INCOM E OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IF (I) THE SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY ITA 246-2011 3 PREVIOUS YEAR AND (II) THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLA NATION ABOUT THE NATURE OF SOURCE OF THAT SUM; OR (III) THE EXPLANATION IS NOT IN THE OPINION OF THE AO SATISFACTORY, WHETHER THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE IN THE ASSESSEES NAME OR IN THE NAME OF THE THIRD PARTY. IT IS WELL ESTAB LISHED BY THE DECISIONS OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS THAT THE BURDEN OF PR OVING THAT A CREDIT ENTRY APPEARING IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DOES NOT REPRESENT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE ASSESSEE. WHERE AN Y SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE INITIAL ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CREDIT. IF THE EXPLANATION IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY OR REASONABLE , THE AO CAN TREAT SUCH MONEY AS THE ASSESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOU RCE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE AO TO LOCATE THE EXACT SOURCE OF THE CREDITS. THE ASSESSEE CAN PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF CREDITS, THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR AND CREDITWORTHINESS BY ESTABLISHING SOME PLAUSIBLE EVIDENCE. THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRECISION FINANCE (P) LTD.(1994) 208 ITR 465 (CAL), CIT VS. UNITED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CO. (P) LTD. 187 ITR 596 (CAL), ORIENTAL WIRE INDUS TRIES (P) LTD. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (CAL), C. KANT & CO. VS. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 63 (CAL), PRAKASH TEXTILES AGENCY VS. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (CAL), SHANKER INDUSTRIES VS. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (CAL) AND THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M.A. UNNEERI KUTTY VS. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147 (KERL ), DEALING WITH THE EXTENT OF ONUS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE LAID D OWN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EXPECTED TO ESTABLISH (1) PROOF OF IDENTITY OF H IS CREDITORS, (B) CAPACITY OF CREDITORS TO ADVANCE MONEY AND (C) GENUINENESS OF T HE TRANSACTIONS. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M.A. UNNEERI KUTTYS CASE (SUPRA) IS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M.A. UNNEERI KUTTY VS. CIT (S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 4789 OF 1993- (19 93) 201 ITR 23 (ST). THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELJI DEORAJ & CO. VS. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 708 (BOM) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES DUTY TO PROVE THAT AN UNEXPLAINED ENTRY IN HIS ACCOUNT BOOK DOES NOT REPR ESENT UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS NOT DISCHARGED BY MERELY SHOWING THAT THE CREDITED IS NOT A FICTITIOUS PARTY BUT A REAL PARTY BUT THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAS TO PROVE FURTHER THAT THE ENTRY MADE IN ACCOUNT BOOK IS A GENUINE EN TRY. 7. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION OF THE CASE LAW ON THE POINT WHAT TRANSPIRES IS THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN ORDER TO DISCHA RGE THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE U/S.68, HAS TO ESTABLISH NOT ONLY THE IDEN TITY OF HIS CREDITORS AND CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITS BUT ALSO THE CAPACITY O F THE CREDITORS TO ADVANCE MONEY AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION . MERE FILING OF PAN AND CONFIRMATION WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO PROVE T HE GENUINENESS OF CREDITS. PAN GIVES THE IDENTITY WHICH IN PRESENT CA SE HAD NOT BEEN DENIED, HOWEVER OTHER TWO INGREDIENTS I.E. THE CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION REMAIN UNEXPLAINED. THUS THE BASIC REQU IREMENTS OF SECTION 68 ARE NOT COMPLIED WITH, THEN SUBSEQUENT EXERCISE TO PROVE THE SAME BY VARIOUS LOGIC ARE FUTILE. THUS THE DEPOSITS AGGREGA TING TO RS.10,00,000/- SHOWN IN THE NAMES OF THESE TWO PARTIES ARE, THEREF ORE, HELD NON GENUINE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS ADDED IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME U/S. 68 OF THE IT ACT. 5. ON APPEAL, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD. CIT (A) DE LETED THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA NO.710/RJT/2010 DATE D 25-08-2010. THE LD. CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT THIS YEAR ALSO THE FACTS ARE SAME AS THAT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO DELETED THE ADDI TION OF RS.90,000/- BEING INTEREST PAID TO BOTH THE AFORESAID DEPOSITORS. ITA 246-2011 4 AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), THE REVEN UE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING ADDITION OF RS.1000000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT S U/S.68 OF THE ACT AND ADDITION OF RS.90000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF D ISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID ON THESE DEPOSITS. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE EVI DENTIARY VALUE OF THE SELF-DEPOSITION STATEMENT MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY MISS MITAL J. SHAH AS WELL AS THE ADMISSION MADE BY SHRI VAIBHAV J. SHAH BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE RECORDING STATEM ENT ON OATH U/S.131 OF THE ACT THAT IN FACT THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY LOA N TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEES OWN MONEY; WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THEM I N CASH BY THEIR FATHER WHO HAD RECEIVED THE SAME FROM SHRI SUBHASHB HAI NAKHVA, SON OF THE ASSESSEE; WAS ROUTED THROUGH THEM IN THE GUI SE OF UNSECURED LOANS IN THE NAME OF DEPOSITORS. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 4. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, ON BEHALF OF R EVENUE SHRI VILAS V. SHINDE, DR APPEARED AND POINTED OUT THAT, BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER BOTH THE DEPOSITORS NAMELY MISS MITAL J. SHAH AS WELL AS SHR I VAIBHAV J. SHAH ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE B UT THEIR FATHER, WHO HAD RECEIVED THE SAME FROM SHRI SUBHASHBHAI NAKHVA, SON OF THE ASSESSEE, WAS ROUTED THROUGH THEM IN THE GUISE OF UNSECURED LOANS IN THEIR NAME. ON THIS BASIS, THE LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLEADED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS TO ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW I.E. WHETHER THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE GIFT OR LOAN FROM THEIR FATH ER WHO HAD RECEIVED THE SAME FROM SHRI SUBHASHBHAI NAKHVA, SON OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD DR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THE DEDUCTIO N OF RS.90,000/- BEING INTEREST PAID ON THESE TWO LOANS. WHEN THE PRINCIP AL ACTUALLY BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE, TO WHOM THE INTEREST OF RS.90,000/- WAS P AID ALSO NEEDS INVESTIGATION. THE LD CIT(A) HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THIS ASPECT AN D DELETED THE SAME AS GENUINE. WITH REGARD TO THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. AY 2006- 07, THE LD DR POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDITION WAS MERELY DELETED AS THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITHOUT TAKING STEP OF VERIFICATION OF INCOME-TAX RETURN OF THE CREDITO RS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE POWERS OF LD CIT(A) ARE CONTERMINOUS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS HELD ITA 246-2011 5 BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT TH E CIT(A) CAN DO WHAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN DO AND ALSO DIRECT HIM TO DO WHAT HE FAILS TO DO. THUS, IF A PROPER INVESTIGATION HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE LD CIT(A) TO DO FURTHER INVESTIGATION EITHER BY HIMSELF OR TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER INVESTIGATION. SI NCE THIS WAS NOT DONE IN THIS CASE, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT, THE MATTER BE RESTO RED TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A). 7. AS AGAINST THIS, THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE DREW OUT ATT ENTION TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 DATED 20.03.2012 (TAX APPEAL NO.50 OF 2011), AVA ILABLE AT PAGE NO.51-56 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND CONTENDED THAT IN THAT ASSESSMEN T YEAR ALSO THE LOAN WAS RECEIVED FROM BOTH THE ASSESSEES I.E. RS.3 LACS FRO M MISS MITAL J. SHAH AND RS.8 LACS FROM SHRI VAIBHAV J. SHAH WHICH WERE TREATED B Y THE TRIBUNAL AS GENUINE. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES ARE SAME IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ALSO AND THE LOAN WAS GIVEN IN THE SAM E MANNER AS IT IS GIVEN IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL; THEREFORE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD CIT(A) BE CONFIRMED. WITH REGARD TO QUERY FROM BENCH I.E. WHAT IS THE NA TURE OF TRANSACTIONS, WHETHER IT IS GIFT OR LOAN WHICH MISS MITAL J. SHAH AND SHRI V AIBHAV J. SHAH RECEIVED FROM FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE PLEADED THAT HE IS NOT AWARE ABOUT ITS NATURE AND THIS QUESTION WAS NOT AS KED BY ANY OF THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE THEREFORE SUGGES TED THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED EITHER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OR TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A). 8. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY G ONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED BOTH THE LOANS AS NOT GENUINE ON THE GROUND THAT BO TH THE DEPOSITORS ARE ONLY NAMELENDERS. IT IS ONLY ASSESSEES MONEY WHICH HAS ROUTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF LOAN. BE THAT IT MAY BE, NONE OF THE AU THORITIES BELOW HAS EXAMINED THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS I.E. WHETHER BOTH THE DE POSITORS NAMELY MISS MITAL J. SHAH AND SHRI VAIBHAV J. SHAH RECEIVED THE LOAN OR GIFT FROM THEIR FATHER WHO HAD RECEIVED THE SAME FROM SHRI SUBHASHBHAI NAKHVA, SON OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA 246-2011 6 FURTHER THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT T HAT BOTH THE DEPOSITORS STATED THAT THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY LOAN TO THE ASS ESSEE BUT IT WAS ASSESSEES OWN MONEY WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THEM BY HER FATHER WHO HAD RECEIVED THE SAME FROM SHRI SUBHASHBHAI NAKHVA, SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS ROUTED THROUGH THEM IN THE GUISE OF UNSECURED L OANS IN THE NAME OF BOTH DEPOSITORS . WE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND DIRECT HIM TO CONDUCT FURTHER INQUIRY I. E. WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF MONEY RECEIVED BY BOTH THE DEPOSITORS FROM THEIR FA THER I.E. WHETHER IT WAS LOAN OR GIFT, FROM WHERE IT WAS RECEIVED, WHAT WAS ITS N ATURE ETC AFTER ASCERTAINING THESE FACTS, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT IS ASSESSEES OWN MONEY WHICH IS ROUTED THROUGH BOTH THE DEPOSITORS AS BROUGHT OUT B Y IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO RE-ADJUDICATE UPON THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( *.#. , % D. K. SRIVASTAVA ) ( .#. -. / T. K. SHARMA) #( '/ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '/ /JUDICIAL MEMBER /#- 0/1/ ORDER DATE 30-08-2013. /RAJKOT *NVA/BT !'# $%'& / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT- THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JA MNAGAR. 2. / RESPONDENT- SHRI RANCHHODBHAI JIVABHAI NAKHVA, P ROP. RANCHHODBHAI JIVABHAI,K-1-76/1, GIDC, STU, JAMNAGAR. 3. '151 % & 6% / CONCERNED CIT-JAMNAGAR 4. & 6%- / CIT (A)-JAMNAGAR 5. :;< % , , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. <* >? / GUARD FILE. /#- '# / BY ORDER TRUE COPY PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, RAJKOT ITA 246-2011 7 1.DATE OF DICTATION :31-07-2013 2.DATE OF PLACING THE DRAFT. :01-08-2013/29-08-20 13 3.DATE OF APPROVAL OF DRAFT. : 4.DATE OF RETURN FROM JM : 5.DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6.DATE OF SENDING TO BENCH CLERK : 7.DATE OF RECEIPT BY BENCH CLERK : 8.DATE OF PLACING IT FOR ENDORSEMENT : 9.DATE OF ENDORSEMENT : 10.DATE OF DISPATCH :