The ITO, Ward-8(1), Ahmedabad V. Sachitel Commuinications Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2673/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67683 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JANGID
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Capital asset; Depreciation; Additional evidence
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

ITA NO 2673/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, J.M. & SHRI ANIL CH ATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO.2673/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) THE ITO, WARD 8(1), AHMEDABAD APPELLANT) VS. SACHITEL COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD ANDA MUKHI NO VAAS GULBAI TEKRA, AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAICS4453J APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.P. JANGID. SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAKAR SHARMA A.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 05-09-201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-09-2013 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD DATED 28.06.2010 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE AS UNDER. ITA NO 2673/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 2 3. ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN OFFERING BPO SERVI CES TO VARIOUS CLIENTS AND IS HAVING A CALL CENTRE. ASSESSEE ELECT RONICALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON 30.11.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREA FTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 12.12.2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 2,12,54,460/ -. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 28.06.2010 GRANTED SUBSTANT IAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT(A ), THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,02,46,219/- OF ASSETS DISCLOSED I N THE BALANCE SHEET. 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 30,30,137/- OUT OF TOTAL DISALL OWANCE OF RS. 33,09,717/- IN RESPECT OF ASSETS FOR WHICH BILLS ARE CLAIMED TO BE NOT FURNISHED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE HOLDING THE SAME AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,60,730/- BEING EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 5. THE LD. CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,11,811/- IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED U NEXPLAINED CREDITORS. 6. THE LD. CIT-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 61,23,286/- IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAIN ED UNSECURED LOAN. 7. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-XIV, AHMEDA BAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN VIOLA TION OF RULE 46A. 4. GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 ARE INTERCONNECTED AND THEREFORE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. THESE 2 GROUNDS ARE IS IN RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS . 1,02,46,219/- TO ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION THEREON. ITA NO 2673/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 3 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESS ING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN ADDITION TO NEW ASSETS AMOU NTING TO RS. 1,77,95,962/- IN ITS BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE WA S ASKED TO FURNISH THE COPIES OF THE PURCHASE BILLS OF THE NEW ASSETS ACQU IRED BY IT. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPIES FOR ASSETS AMOUNTING TO RS. 75,49, 743/- FOR THE VARIOUS CATEGORIES LISTED IN PARA 4.2 OF THE ORDER OF A.O. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO S UBMIT THE BILLS, THE ADDITION IN NEW ASSETS REMAINS UNVERIFIABLE. HE ACC ORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,02,46,219/- AND ALSO DISALLOWED T HE DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME OF AMOUNTING TO RS. 33,09,717/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFO RE CIT(A). CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSES SEE DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. IN THE ASST. ORDER HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF NON SUBMISSION OF BILLS RELATED TO THESE ASSETS AND THEREFORE, NON VERIFIABILITY OF AC QUISITION AND UTILISATION OF THESE ASSETS. THE A.O. HAS NOT DISCUSSED ABOUT ANY OTHER REASON PARTICULARLY THE INTERLINKING OF THESE ASSETS WITH THE ENTIRITY OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE, PRIMARY REQUIREMENT OF SOU RCE OF THE ASSETS WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO CARRY OUT SUCH BUSINESS AS CONTENDED B Y APPELLANT AT THE TIME APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. NOW WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS S UBMITTED DETAILS WITH EVIDENCES OF ALL THE BILLS AND RELATED EXPENDITURE FOR CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON SUCH ASSET, THE A.O. ONCE AGAIN NOT EXAMINED SUCH EVIDENCES ON MERIT. THE A.O. ONLY REITERATED THAT SUCH EVIDENCES WERE NOT P RODUCED DURING ASST., HENCE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE. A.O. EVEN HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ASPECT THAT WHICH ARE THE BILLS AN D VOUCHERS NOW SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND WHY THE SAME BE ADMITTED I.E. WHETHER ON MERIT ANY DISALLOWANCES ARE CALLED FOR FROM THOSE E VIDENCES? THEREFORE, THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 1, 02,46,2 19/- AS A LUMP SUM ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ASSET FOR WHICH BILLS WERE N OT PRODUCED. THE A.O. HAS NOT RESORTED TO INVOKING ANY SECTION I.E. 69 OF THE ACT AND ALSO HAS/MADE ANY SATISFACTION BEFORE SUCH ADDITION. THE ADDITION SO MADE IS MECHANICAL IN NATURE ON ACCOUNT OF PART COMPLIANCE BY APPELLANT DURING A SST. PROCEEDINGS BUT NOW WHEN ENTIRE DETAILS ARE SUBMITTED, THE A.O. DOES NO T WANT TO VERITY THE SAME ON MERIT. SUCH ADDITIONS ARE THEREFORE, NOT SUSTAINAB LE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE ITA NO 2673/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 4 A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE SUCH ADDITION, WHICH NOW HAS NO SATISFACTORY BASIS. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS. 1,02,46,219/-. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS NO W IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THE DESPITE V ARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT TH E PURCHASE BILLS OF THE ASSETS BEFORE A.O. AND IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. HE THUS SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. THE LEARNED A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND MADE DETAILED SUB MITS BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKE D TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF THE BILLS OF ASSETS ACQUIRED BY IT BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT THE ENTIRE DETAILS AND THER EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ADDITIONS MADE TO THE ASSETS TO THE EXTENT OF THE BILLS WERE NOT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALS O AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT BEFORE CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAD FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE AND CIT(A) HAD ALSO CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OF FICER. ASSESSING OFFICER OBJECTED TO FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE B UT HAD NOT EXAMINED THE EVIDENCES ON MERIT. CIT(A) THEREFORE HELD THAT WHEN THE ENTIRE DETAILS ITA NO 2673/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 5 WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO AND SINCE THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT VERIFIED THE SAME ON MERITS NO ADDITIONS WAS CALLED FOR AND THEREFORE DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION AND ALSO ALLOWED THE DE PRECIATION OF THE SAME. WE FIND THAT ON THE EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF BILLS WHICH WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A), THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING OF CIT(A) OF ITS EXAMINATION AND CONCLUSION. WE THEREFORE OF TH E VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED AFRESH. WE THEREFORE RESTORE T HE MATTER TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR HIM TO VERIFY THE DETAILS AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. THUS T HIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO. 3 IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS. 2 ,50,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE. 10. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID RS .2,50,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE WAS AN EXPENDITURE OF CA PITAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY BILLS FOR THE PURCHA SE OF COMPUTER, HE DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. A GGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER B EFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE D ELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4.2 1 HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. 1 AM INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT . TWO BILLS VIZ. INVOICE NO. VTA/002/05 DT: 25-07-05 OF M/S. VOCALL FOR 15 DAYS TRAINING PROGRAMME TO STAFF ITA NO 2673/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 6 OF APPELLANT FOR CRM SOFTWARE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR BPO/KPO INDUSTRIES AND INVOICE NO. KSL/007 DT: 27-07-05OF M/S. KASLE FOR S OFTWARE FOR CRM DEVELOPMENT SPEAS WERE SUBMITTED WITH DETAILS OF PAYMENT THROUG H CHEQUE OF RS. 2.5 LAC TO EVIDENCE ITS CONTENTIONS. SINCE THESE SOFTWARE ARE TECHNICAL SOFTWARE WITH SPECIFIC PURPOSE, THE SAME CANNOT BE HELD AS CAPITAL ASSET A S PER SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION. THESE ARE RELATED TO EXPENDITURE ON TRAINING WITH L ICENCE TO THE MAIN SOFTWARE HAVING SINGLE USE, .THE A.O.IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO DEL ETE ADDITION SO MADE. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.2,50,000/- 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS NO W IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED A.R. SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE SOFTWARE WERE TECHNICAL SOFTWARE WITH SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE CAPITAL ASSETS. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT IT WAS IN RELATION TO EXPENDITURE ON TRAINING WITH LICENCE TO THE MAIN SOFTWARE HAVING SINGLE USE. BEFORE US, THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) BY BRINGING ANY CONTRARY MATERIA L ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERF ERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED . GROUND NO. 4 IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 27,60,730. 14. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESS ING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENSES ON VARIOUS ACCO UNTS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE TABULATED IN PARA 6 PAGE OF 3 OF HIS ORDE R THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT ITA NO 2673/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 7 BEING RS. 1,65,64,384/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF THE EXPENSES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED PARTIAL DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 1/6 TH OF ALL THE EXPENSES AND ACCORDINGLY MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 27,60,730/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFO RE CIT(A). CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUB MISSIONS AS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT. I AM INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE CLAIM OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. EVEN HIS DISALLOWING L/6 N OF SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS NO BASIS. ALL THESE EXPEND ITURE ARE BILLED AND PROPERLY VOUCHED AS EVIDENCED FROM THE D ETAILS SO SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT. EVEN APPROPRIATE DEDUCTION OF TDS WAS AL SO MADE WHEREVER IT IS APPLICABLE. ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT APPELLANT HAS NO T SUBMITTED COMPLETE DETAILS, L/6 TH DISALLOWANCE ON ADHOC BASIS, DOES NOT SURVIVE THE LEGAL 'BASIS. FURTHER, WHEN APPELLANT SUBMITTED COMPLETE DETAILS NOW, THE A.O. ONCE AGAIN HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT OR IREGULARITY WHIC H REQUIRES SUCH DISALLOWANCE. DURING THE A.Y. 06-07, THE APPELLANT IS SUBJECTED T O FRINGE BENEFIT TAX ALSO. IT IS, THEREFORE, ALL SUCH EXPENDITURE INVOLVING ANY PERSO NAL ELEMENT IS TAKEN CARE OF BY FBT. THE ADDITION SO MADE BY A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFI ED. THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS. 27,60,73 0/-. 15. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 16. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF CIT(A). 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT ALL THE EXPENDITURE WERE BILLED AND PROPERLY VOUCHE D. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEDUCTED APPROPRIA TE TDS WHEREVER ITA NO 2673/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 8 APPLICABLE AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED O UT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE. BEFORE US, THE REVENU E COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND THEREFORE WE FIND NO REA SON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 5 IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF R S. 22,11,811/- WITH RESPECT TO UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS. 18. ON PERUSING THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, ASSE SSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE WAS SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS. 22,1 1,811/- IN ITS BALANCE SHEET. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETA ILS WITH RESPECT TO THE CREDITORS, HE CONSIDERED 25% OF THE CREDITS AS UNEX PLAINED CREDITS IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 5,52,952/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESS EE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDI NG AS UNDER:- 6.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. AS DISCUSSED IN EARLIER PARAS, THE A.O. MADE SUCH ADHO C ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PARTIAL COMPLIANCE BY. THE APPELLANT DURING ASST. P ROCEEDINGS. THE BASIS OF 25% OF SUCH CREDITOR FOR WHICH ADDTION WAS MADE IS NOT TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. NOW, WHEN APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED COMPLETE DETAIL, THE A.O. HAS NOT PUT ANY COMMENT ON MERIT OF SUCH DETAILS. ON THE OTHER HAND , PERUSAL, OF SUCH DETAILS SUBSTANTIATES CLAIM OF APPELLANT. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC FINDING AGAINST THE GROUND, THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MA KING SUCH ADHOC ADDITION. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE SUCH ADDITION. THE APPEL LANT GET RELIEF OF RS. 22,11,811/-. 19. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO 2673/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 9 20. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED D.R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A SSESSING OFFICER AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE A.O. WE ALSO FIND THAT THERE IS NO FINDING OF CIT(A) WITH RESPEC T TO EXAMINATION OF CREDITORS AND THEIR GENUINENESS. WE THEREFORE FEEL THAT THIS ASPECT NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED AFRESH. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THE MAT TER TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR HIM TO PASS SPEAKING ORDER, AFTER CONSI DERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO. 6 IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN. 22. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN R ECEIPT OF UNSECURED LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS. 61,23,286/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT DETAILS, CONFIRMATION OF THE UNSECURED LOAN. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONFIRMATION OR PROOF OF RECEIPT OF LOAN, ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE LOAN TO BE UNVERIFIABLE AND THEREFORE HELD THE UNSE CURED LOAN AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AND MAD E AN ADDITION OF THE SAME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION B Y HOLDING AS UNDER:- 7. 3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS AS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT. I AM INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT BEFORE THE A.O. AND NOW ALSO BEFORE ME IN THE FORM OF IDENTITY (COPY OF PASSPORT AND PERMANEN T RESIDENT CARD), COPY OF ACCOUNT ITA NO 2673/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 10 SHOWING MONEY RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTY, THE ONUS STAND DISCHARGED BY THE APPELLANT AS FAR A S CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR, THE REASON SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT APPEARS TO BE PLAUSIB LE THAT THE PARTY IS NOT COOPERATING SINCE AMOUNT IS NOT REFUNDED AND LOOKIN G TO NO OBJECTION FROM RBI OR ANY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SUCH PARTY OR APPELLANT FRO M DRI OR ENFORCEMENT, SUCH CAPACITY IS PROVED. THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVER SE COMMENT ON SUCH BASIS INGREDIENTS WHILE EXAMINING THE VERIFICATION OF SUC H LOAN. NO INFORMATION WAS CALLED FOR FROM ANY AUTHORITIES. IT IS, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE COMMENT AND CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES, ADDITION MADE BY A.O. IS HELD JUSTIFIED AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE SUCH ADDITION. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS. 61,23,286/- 23. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS NO W IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 24. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 25. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION HAS NOTED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF COPY OF PASSPORT, PERMANENT RESIDENT CARD, COPY OF ACCOUNT SHOWING MONEY RECEIPT THROUGH BANKING CH ANNELS AND CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTY, THAT THE ONUS HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAD MADE NO ADVERSE COMMENT ON THE BASIC INGREDIENTS WHILE EXAM INING THE VERIFICATION OF LOAN IN THE REMAND REPORT. BEFORE US, THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO 2673/ AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 11 GROUND NO. 7 IS WITH RESPECT TO ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. 26. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED D.R. DID NOT SERIOUSLY ARGUE THIS ISSUE AND THEREFORE THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20 - 09 - 2013. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AH MEDABAD