ITO, Faridabad V. Sh Akhil Kalia, Faridabad

ITA 3018/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0328 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS ANUSHA KHURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: J P GULATI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3018/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ITO, SHRI AKHIL KALIA, WARD-1 (1), H. NO.433, SECTOR-16A, NEW DELHI. V. FARIDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MRS. ANUSHA KHURANA, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.P. GULATI, ADVOCATE. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA, AM: THIS IS REVENUE'S APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CI T(A), FARIDABAD DATED 30.4.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF `.57 LAK HS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SATISFACT ORILY EXPLAIN THE CASH CREDITS INTRODUCED IN TO HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/ S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. PAGE 2 OF 10 ITA NO3018./DEL/10 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE F INDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD CIT(A) THAT VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED 28.10.2009, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ACCEPTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE COMPLETE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE PERVERSE AND CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE AVAILAB LE ON RECORD AS IN REPLY FILED ON 21.2.2009, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED HIS L ETTER VIDE WHICH HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE BEING PR ODUCED AND ON THIS REPLY ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY WRITTEN THA T NOT PRODUCED. 3. BRIEF FACTS TILL THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ARE NOTED BY THE L D CIT(A) IN PARA NO.4 & 5 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER EXAMINED THE UNSECURED LOANS AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2007 AND FOUND THAT THE FOLLOWING CREDIT BALANCES WERE OUTSTANDING: I) LATE SHRI ANIL KALIA (FATHER). `.9,20,814/- II) MR. ANIL ARORA (FRIEND) `,3,00,000/- III) MR. VIJAY PRATAP (FRIEND). `.38,00,000/- IV) MRS. SARGAM GANDHI (WIFE). `.19,00,000/- 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED FOR THE DETAI9LS OF UNSECUR ED LOANS TAKEN DURING THE YEAR GIVING THEIR COMPLETE ADDRESS, PAN, THE AS SESSING OFFICER WITH WHOM ASSESSED TO TAX AND CONFIRMATIONS WITH THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME. FINALLY, IN THE WRITTEN REPLY DATED 6.7.2009, THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN FROM TH REE PERSONS TWO CLOSE FRIENDS AND ONE FROM THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER TH E SCHEDULE ANNEXED WITH FORM NO. 3CD, CLAUSE 24(A). ALSO, THE DETAI LS OF PAN PAGE 3 OF 10 ITA NO3018./DEL/10 PARTICULARS WERE ENCLOSED IN ANNEXURE-2. ON FURTHER QUERIES , THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ANOTHER WRITTEN REPLY DATED 18.8.2009 WHEREBY TH E CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS OF UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN FROM MR. ANIL AROR A, MR. VOJAY PRATAP & MRS. SARGAM GANDHI WAS MADE AS PER THE ANNEXURE-6. IT W AS ALSO INFORMED THAT SHRI VIJAY PRATAP WHO WAS THE FRIEND OF SH RI ANIL KALIA, THE APPELLANT, HAD SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION OF `.49 LAKH S AS AGAINST `.38 LAKHS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2007. THE ASSESSEE A LSO FURNISHED A WRITTEN REPLY DATED 28.10.2009 VIDE WHICH THE CONFIRMATI ON OF LOANS FROM WIFE MRS. SARGAM GANDHI AND FROM SHRI VIJAY PRATAP IN ANNEXURE 3 & 4 RESPECTIVELY WERE FILED. FURTHER ON 8.12.2009, THE COUNSEL O F THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND CHANGED HIS STAND AGAIN IN HIS WRITTEN REPL Y REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN SHRI ANIL ARORA GAVE THE LOAN OF `. 3,00,000/-, MRS., GANDHI OF `.6,00,000/- AND SHJRI VIJAY PRATAP OF `.4,00,000/- AND ANOTHER CREDITOR APPEARED AS SHRI TAPENDER KUMAR S/O SHRI O M PRAKASH WHO GAVE THE TOTAL LOAN OF `.45,00,000/- (`.5,00,000/ - + `.30,00,000/- + `.10,00,000/-). ALONG WITH THESE CHANGED DETAILS, TH E COUNSEL ALSO FILED THEIR CONFIRMATIONS AND THE PASS BOOK/ THE COPY OF BAN K STATEMENT, AFTER THE ANALYSIS OF THE ENTIRE ISSUE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINA LLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SINCE THE SAME H AD NOT BEEN PRODUCED AFTER REPEATED REMINDERS AND THUS HE INITIATED PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SEPARAT ELY. IN SUPPORT OF THE REVISED DETAILS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS, THE COUNSEL OF T HE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A WRITTEN REPLY ON 21.12.2009 IN WHICH WERE SUBMIT TED THE ADDITIONAL DETAILS, LIKE THE COPY OF FORM NO.3CBN AND FORM NO.3CD WITH ANNEXURE AND THE CONFIRMATION THAT `.57,00,000/-WAS RECEIVED THR OUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS ON ACCOUNT OF LOANS FROM MRS. SARGAM GANDHI AND HIS FRIEND, SHRI VIJAY PRATAP SINGH BUT THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PAGE 4 OF 10 ITA NO3018./DEL/10 BALANCE WAS PENDING AT THE TIME OF FINALIZATION OF ACCO UNTS. THE COUNSEL HAD PLEADED THAT IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE RECONCILIATION OF TH E ACCOUNTS WITH THE CONFIRMATION FROM MRS. SARGAM GANDHI AND SHRI VIJAY P RATAP SINGH, THAT THEY FOUND THAT THE LOAN FROM SHRI TAPENDER KUMAR AMOUN TED TO `.45,00,000/- AND FROM SHRI VIJAY PRATAP, TO `.4,00, 000/- ONLY WHICH FACTS WERE DULY VERIFIED AND CONFIRMED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI VIJAY PRATAP AND HIS RELATIVE, SHRI TAPENDER KUMAR. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FU RNISHED CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI TAPENDER KUMAR, COPY OF ACKNOWL EDGEMENT OF ITR OF SHRI TAPENDER KUMAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, COPY OF PAN CARD OF SHRI9 VIJAY PRATAP, COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF SHRI V IJAY PRATAP FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF `.4,00,000/- AND COPY OF BANK ACCO UNTS OF SHRI AKHIL KALIA REFLECTING THE TRANSACTIONS THAT COULD BE VERIFI ED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO EXPLAINED THE N ON COMPLIANCE OF THE DATES OF HEARING WHICH OCCURRED DUE TO THE NON AVAIL ABILITY OF THE THIRD PARTY CONFIRMATIONS AND DETAILS AND HAD P[LEADED THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTIONAL DEFAULT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS O F THE ASSESSEE IN PARAS 4.11. TO 4.14, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALLY ADDED THE A MOUNT OF `.57,00,000/- (`.38,00,000/- + `.19,00,000/- UNDER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS THE EXPLANATIO N OFFERED BY CHANGING STANDS IN THE ABOVE SAID EXPLANATIONS WAS NO T SATISFACTORY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT (A) WHO HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION AND NOW THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. 5. LD DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS HER SUBMISSION THAT IT HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA NO.4.1 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PRODUCED THAT THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PAGE 5 OF 10 ITA NO3018./DEL/10 PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. IT IS SUBMITTED BY HER THAT SINCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BEFORE LD CIT(A), THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) OF DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 6. AS AGAINST THIS, LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF LD CIT(A). REGARDING GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE, FOR NON PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REGARDING ARGUMENT OF LD DR OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ASPECT, HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA NO.7 ON PAGE NO. 10 OF THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN NOTED BY LD CIT(A) THAT HE HAD DIRECTED THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO ENABLE HIM TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF UN SECURED LOANS IN VIEW OF PROVISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT FOR HIS SATISFACTI ON AND ACCORDINGLY, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE H AS SUBMITTED HIS REPORT NO.26 DATED 22/4/2010 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY HIM ALSO. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING OF LD CIT(A), GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE DOES NOT SURVIVE AND THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD DR OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO OF NO RELEVANCE BECAUSE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE ULTIMATELY PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD ASSESSING OFFICER AND WERE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND REPORT WAS FURNISHED BY HIM BEFORE LD CIT(A). ON MERIT, HE SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE THREE INGREDIENTS I.E. IDENTITY OF THE LOAN CREDITO R, HIS CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION ARE NOT ESTABLISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE THRO UGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRST, WE CONSIDER AND DECIDE GROUN D NO.2 OF THE REVENUE AS PER WHICH IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THI S GROUND OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE WE FIND THAT IT HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE LD CIT(A) IN PARA NO.7 OF HIS ORDER PAGE 6 OF 10 ITA NO3018./DEL/10 THAT HE HAD DIRECTED THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY, THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT NO.26 DATED 24.4.2010 BEFORE LD CIT(A), PART OF WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY LD CIT(A) ON PAGES 10-15 OF HIS ORDER. HENCE, THIS GRO UND OF THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED AND WE REJECT THE SAME. 8. NOW, WE CONSIDER GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE I.E. MERIT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.57 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF TH E ACT WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE IS THIS THAT INITIALLY, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF LOAN OF `.57 LAKHS WAS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE JOINT LEDGER ACCOUNT OF MRS. SARGAM GANDHI AND MR. VIJAY PRA TAP AND THIS ACCOUNT WAS LATER BIFURCATED INTO PERSONAL LOAN ACCOUNT OF MS. SARG AM GANDHI AND LOAN ACCOUNT OF MR. VIJAY PRATAP. INITIALLY, IT WAS SHOW N BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IN THE BALANCE SHEET THAT OUT OF THIS LOAN OF `.57 LAKHS, `.38 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FROM MR. VIJAY PRATAP AND `.19 LAKHS WAS RECEIV ED FROM MRS. SARGAM GANDHI. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD CIT (A) AND BEFORE US THAT IT WAS REPORTED BY THE AUDITOR IN THE AUDITED STATEMENT OF AC COUNTS THAT THE FIGURE OF LOAN TAKEN IS SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE RESPEC TIVE LOAN CREDITORS. IT IS ALSO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BECAUSE OF CLERICAL MISTAKE O F THE ACCOUNTANT, THE BIFURCATION OF UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PRESENT YEAR WAS WRONGLY STATED IN THE BALANCE SHEET BUT THE FINAL POSITIO N SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BEFORE LD CIT(A) BY BIFUR CATING THE TOTAL LOAN AMOUNT OF `.57 LAKHS IN THREE NAMES I.E. `.45 LAKHS MR. TAPENDER KUMAR, `.4 LAKHS FROM MR. VIJAY PRATAP AND `.8 LAKHS FROM THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE MRS. SARGAM GANDHI IS THE CORRECT POSITION DULY SUPPORTED BY THE BA NK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THESE THREE LOAN CREDITORS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK ALSO. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CHEQUE NUM BERS AS PER BANK STATEMENT PAGE 7 OF 10 ITA NO3018./DEL/10 OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER BANK STATEMENTS OF THESE THREE PERS ONS ARE SAME AND HENCE, EVEN IF THERE IS SOME MISTAKES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THESE UNSECURED LOANS ARE NOT EXPLAI NED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 9. REGARDING THE LOAN OF `.45 LAKHS FROM MR. TAPENDER K UMAR, WE FIND THAT HIS CONFIRMATION IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.25 OF THE PAPER BO OK WHICH CONTAINS HIS ADDRESS AS WELL AS PAN NUMBER. HE HAS GIVEN THE CHEQUE NUM BER, DATE AND AMOUNT OF LOAN OF `.45 LAKHS GIVEN BY HIM TO THE ASSES SEE MR. AKHIL KALIA. THE CHEQUE NUMBER ARE 962581 DATED 2.9.2006 FOR `.30 LAKHS, CHEQUE NUMBER 962583 DATED 27.9.2006 OF `.10 LAKHS AND CHEQUE NUMBER 962585 DATED 9.,10.2006 OF `.5 LAKHS TOTAL `.45 LAKHS. HIS BANK STATEMENT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 27-28 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH THESE THREE CHEQUES ARE DEBI TED BY THE BANK WITH THE SAME AMOUNT AND SAME CHEQUE NUMBER. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON PAGES 30-32 OF THE PAPER BOO K AND CREDIT IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS BY WAY OF THE SAME THREE CH EQUES FOR TOTAL AMOUNT OF `.45 LAKHS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT THERE IS ANY MISTAKE IN THESE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LOAN CREDITOR. THIS IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TH E IDENTITY OF SHRI TAPENDER KUMAR IS IN DOUBT OR HIS CREDITWORTHINESS IS IN DOUBT. HENCE, ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT STANDS COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE ALTHOU GH THERE ARE CERTAIN MISTAKES IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT BECAUSE OF THOS E MISTAKES, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE U/S 68 WHEN WITH THE HELP OF INDEPENDENT EVID ENCE I.E. BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND OF THE LOAN CREDITOR, CORRECT PICTURE IS AVAILABLE AND NO MISTAKE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT WITH REGARD TO THESE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THIS LO AN CREDITOR. 10. SIMILARLY, REGARDING LOAN OF ` 4 LAKHS FROM SHRI V IJAY PRATAP SINGH, WE FIND THAT HIS CONFIRMATION IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.33 OF T HE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING HIS PAGE 8 OF 10 ITA NO3018./DEL/10 ADDRESS AND PAN NUMBER ALONG WITH CHEQUE NUMBER, DATE AND AMOUNT BEING CHEQUE NUMBER 950169 DATED 4.1.2007 OF `.4 LAKHS. COPY OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.35 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IN THE SAME, THERE IS DEBIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 4.1.2007 OF `.4 LAKHS BY WAY OF THE SAME CHEQUE NUMBER. COPY OF THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.36 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THERE IS CREDIT OF `.4 LAKH S IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME DATE BY WAY OF SAME CHEQUE NUMBER 950169 . HENCE, FOR THIS LOAN CREDIT ALSO, ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS OF SECTIO N 68 OF THE ACT ARE COMPLIED WITH BECAUSE IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF LOAN CREDITOR, THE TOTAL WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE BANK AT `.679 LAKHS WHIC H ESTABLISHES THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THIS LOAN CREDITOR. 11. SIMILARLY, THE CONFIRMATION OF MRS. SARGAM GANDHI IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.37 OF THE PAPER BOOK ALONG WITH HER PAN NUMBER AND A DDRESS WHICH ALSO CONTAINS CHEQUE NUMBER, DATE AND AMOUNT REGARDING LOAN OF `.8 LAKHS GIVEN BY HER TO THE ASSESSEE. CHEQUE NUMBERS ARE 714565 DATED 28.11.2006 FOR `.6 LAKHS AND NUMBER 279224 DATED 28.11.2006 OF `.2 LAKHS. THE BANK STATEMENT OF SMT. SARGAM GANDHI IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 38-39 OF THE PAPER B OOK IN WHICH THESE TWO CHEQUES WITH THE SAME AMOUNT AND SAME CHEQUE NUMBERS ARE DEB ITED BY THE BANK. THE RELEVANT BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS APPEARING ON P AGE NO.40 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE BOTH THESE CHEQUES OF `.6 LAKHS AND `.2 L AKHS ARE CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 28.11.2006 BY WAY OF S AME TWO CHEQUES. UNDER THIS FACTUAL POSITION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO I NTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) BECAUSE WE FIND THAT ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 I.E. IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, HIS CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSAC TIONS ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF GIVING CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITORS ALONG WITH THEIR ADDRESSES AND PAN NUMBERS, CHEQUE NUMBERS, DATE AND AMOUNT OF LOAN WHICH ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RELEVANT LOAN CREDITOR. PAGE 9 OF 10 ITA NO3018./DEL/10 HENCE, THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE A SSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DECISIVE FACTOR TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING RECEIPT OF THE UNSECURED LOAN. NO DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THIS ASSESSEE AND THE LOAN CREDITORS. HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN T HE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 13. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE OF HEA RING I.E. 3 RD MARCH, 2011. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (A.K. GAROD IA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 03.3.2011. COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). PAGE 10 OF 10 ITA NO3018./DEL/10