The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar. V. Sh. Gulshan Jain, Amritsar.

ITA 327/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7787 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K R JAIN LD
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL DHAWANLD
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Question of law; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH.T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.264(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SH. GULSHAN JAIN, PROP. M/S VEERU MAL MULKH RAJ JAIN RICE MILLS, JANDIALA GURU, AMRITSAR. PAN:AANPJ-5174B VS. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-IV, AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.327(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), AMRITSAR. VS. SH. GULSHAN JAIN, PROP. VEERU MAL MULKH RAJ JAIN RICE MILLS, JANDIALA GURU, AMRITSAR. PAN:AANPJ-5174B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. K.R. JAIN (LD. ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 09.08.2017 DATE OF PRONO UNCEMENT: 04.10.2017 ORDER PER N. K. CHOUDHRY (JM): THESE CROSS APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WE LL AS REVENUE DEPARTMENT, ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2015 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.70/13-14 BY THE LD. C IT(A)-2, AMRITSAR FOR ASST. YEAR:2010-11. ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL I N ITA NO.264(ASR)/2015 FOR ASST. YEAR:2010-11. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IS WRONG, ILLEGAL AND AGAINST FACTS. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE CONFI RMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: - OUT OF CREDIT IN JASBIR SINGH A/C RS.9,27,950/- OUT OF CREDIT, IN CHARAN SINGH A/C RS.26,00,000/- OUT OF CREDIT IN GURDEV SINGH A/C RS.10,50,00/- 3. THAT LD CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE EXPLANATION OFFERED AND PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADDITIONS ARBITRARILY. 4. THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN AND VERBAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM IN A PROPER AND JUDICIAL MANNER. 5. THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALL OWANCE OF RS.25,000/- PAID TO SH. KEWAL KRISHAN. ACCORDINGLY IT IS PRAYED THAT ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED OR SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS MAY BE PERMISSIB LE MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED. THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.327(ASR)/2015 FOR ASST. YEAR:2010- 11. I) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A), HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT I N DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.72,72,050/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE A .O. U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS AND WHETHER THE LD. CIT( A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSI TS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE ISSUE OF THE CHEQUES AND CREDITWORTH INESS OF THE CREDITORS WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. ALSO, WHETHER THE LD . CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK A CCOUNTS OF THESE CREDITORS WHICH WAS USED AS UNSECURED LOAN TO THE A SSESSEE. II) APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD OR MORE GROU NDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, ENGAGED IN SHELLING OF RI CE FROM PADDY IN THE NAME OF M/S VEERU MAL MULKH RAJ JAIN M ILLS, JANDIALA GURU, AMRITSAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS.11,16,860/- BY FILING RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.10.20 10 AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 28.05.2011 AND LATER ON THE ASSESSEE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND ACCORDINGLY, STATUTORY NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED. ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 3 ON SEEING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS NOTI CED BY THE A.O. THAT ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN INTEREST FREE UNSECURE D LOANS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS DURING THE YEAR AS UNDER: PERSON AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN SHOWN DURING THE YR. YEAR (RS.). JASBIR SINGH 31,25,000/- GURDEV SINGH 16,25,000/- CHARAN SINGH 31,00,000/- HARMINDER SINGH 10,00,000/- KULBIR SINGH 10,00,000/- ON BEING ASKED BY THE A.O. TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES AS SHOWN IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A REVISED AFFIDAVIT IN HIS NAME AND STAT ED THAT THESE CREDIT ENTRIES INCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST FRE E UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN FROM ONE SH. MOOLA SINGH TO THE TUNE OF RS.15,00,000/- AND FROM SH. JASBIR SINGH TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,00,000/ - IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT MENTIONED ABOVE. THE A.O TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,18,50,000/- AS CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY TREATING AS NOT GENUINE AND BEI NG TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED RS.25,000/ - PAID TO SH. KEWAL KRISHAN AS PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES AND FURTHE R ADDED BACK RS.23,550/- ON ACCOUNT OF L.C. CHARGES OF NEW MACHINERY. 4. ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE FIRST APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A), WHO WHILE GIVING PARTLY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY DELET ING THE ADDITION OF RS.72,72,050/- JUSTIFIED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS. ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 4 (I) OUT OF CREDIT IN THE NAME OF JASBIR SINGH ACCOUNT RS.9,27,950/- (II) OUT OF CREDIT IN THE NAME OF CHARAN SINGH ACCOUNT RS.27,00,000/-. (III) OUT OF CREDIT IN GURUDEV SINGH ACCOUNT RS.10,50,000/- THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE RS.25,00 0/- PAID TO SH. KEWAL KRISHAN. 5. LET US TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FIRST. IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEE S CASE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, HOWEV ER, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION QUA SH. JASBIR SINGH, SH. CHARAN SINGH AND SH. GURDEV SINGH. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO PROVE THE SOURCE AND GENUINENESS OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED CREDITS, THE ASSESSEE F ILED AFFIDAVIT OF THE CONCERNED PERSONS AFFIRMING THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS DULY SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF JAMAB ANDI, COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND AGREEMENTS FOR SALE OF LAND, WHER EVER APPLICABLE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNTS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO SUMMONED ALL THE P ERSONS EXCEPT SH. MULA SINGH AND RECORDED THEIR STATEMENT U/S 131 OF THE ACT WHO AFFIRMED THE CONTENTS OF THEIR AFFIDAVITS, DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE FILED AND EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF AMOUNT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ANSWERS GIVEN BY THE CREDITORS WERE LOGICAL, CONSISTENT AN D AFFIRMING WITH THE CONTENTS OF THEIR AFFIDAVITS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BEFORE THE A.O AND EVEN OTHERWISE THE A.O H AS NOT POINTED OUT ANY CONTRADICTION IN THE AFFIDAVITS AND STATEMENT S RECORDED. IN SUPPORT OF SH. JASBIR SINGH QUA ADDITION OF RS.36,25,0 00/- BY THE A.O, THE ASSESSEE AND THE CREDITOR FILED AFFIDAVIT DATED 07.0 1.2013 STATING THAT SH. JASBIR SINGH HAD GIVEN AN AMOUNT OF RS.31,25 ,000/- BY CHEQUE AMOUNTING TO RS.6,25,000, RS.20,00,000/- AND 5 ,00,000 ON 30.04.2009, 14.09.2009 AND 14.09.2009 RESPECTFULLY TH ROUGH PNB, ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 5 JANDIALA GURU, AMRITSAR. SH. JASBIR SINGH, SUBSEQUENTL Y, BY FILING REVISED AFFIDAVIT CLARIFIED THAT IN ADDITION TO AMOUN T RS.31,25,000/- STATED IN THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT, FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/- WAS ALSO ADVANCED AS PERSONAL LOAN ON 28.10.2009, HOWEVER, THIS AMOUNT HAD NOT APPEARED ON THE UNSECURED LOAN. SINCE THE A.O CALLED FOR INFORMATION ONLY IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS, THE AMO UNT APPEARING IN PERSONAL ACCOUNT WAS NOT MENTIONED. THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALL THE CREDITORS WERE ALSO FILED AND THE STATEMENT OF THE CREDI TOR MR. JASBIR SINGH WAS RECORDED BY THE A.O. IN WHICH HE AFFIRMED TH E TRANSACTIONS APPEARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT BY MENTIONING THAT HIS FAMILY IS ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE AND THEIR INCOME WAS ABOUT RS.40 LAKHS AND HE ALSO STATED THA T HIS FAMILY AGREED TO SELL AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 37 KANALS 1 2 MARLAS SITUATED AT VILLAGE RAKH DEVI DESBARA AND 149 KANALS 9 MARLA AT WADALI DOGRAM TO M/S BHARGAV BUILDERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI FOR WHICH SH. JASBIR SINGH RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS.41,72,454/- ON 12.04.2008 BY CHEQUE AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE STATE B ANK OF PATIALA, G.T.ROAD, MANAWALA AND THE COPY OF AGREEME NT TO SELL ALONG WITH THE BANK ACCOUNT INDICATING THE DEPOSIT OF RS.41,7 2,454/- ON 12.04.2008 WAS ALSO FURNISHED AND IT WAS ALSO STATED THA T OUT OF THE SAID DEPOSIT, CASH OF RS.30 LAKH WAS WITHDRAWN ON 09.06. 2008, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNTS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WERE OUT O F THE SAID SALE PROCEEDS OF THE LAND AND ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS DULY SUPP ORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR WHICH AO DID NOT RAISE ANY DOU BT. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT DOUBTED THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND EVEN OTHERWISE OPENING BALANCE OF RS.12,06,558/- A S ON 31 ST MARCH, 2009 IN THE NAME OF AFORESAID CREDITOR MR. JASB IR SINGH HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2009-10. THE L D. CIT(A) WHILE GIVING PARTLY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO OBSERVED T HAT AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS STATEMENTS MADE BEFORE HIM, THE APPELLANT ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 6 HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINE SS OF THE CREDITORS, HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WRONGLY HELD THAT THE SH. JASBIR SINGH UTILIZED RS.9,27,625/- FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTU RAL LAND ALONG WITH HIS OTHER BROTHER BY HOLDING AS UNDER: THEREFORE, OUT OF THE CASH OF RS.30,00,000/- WITHD RAWN BY SH. JASBIR SINGH FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN STATE BANK OF PATIALA ON 09.06.2008 WAS CLAIMED BY SH. JASBIR SINGH TO BE TH E IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF LOANS ADVANCED TO THE APPELLANT. HE INVES TED RS.927,950/- IN THE PURCHASE OF AFORESAID AGRICULTU RAL LAND ON 20.08.2008. HENCE, THIS AMOUNT OF RS.9,27,950/- WA S NOT AVAILABLE WITH HIM TO ADVANE AS LOAN TO THE APPELLANT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SOURCE OF LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.927, 950/- OUT OF RS.30 LAKHS ADVANCED BY SH. JASBIR SINGH TO THE AP PELLANT IS THUS NOT PROVED, AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF RS.927, 950/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT IS CONFIRMED. FINALLY, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT INSPITE OF PROVIN G CREDITWORTHINESS OF HIS FAMILY BY THE CREDITOR SH. JASBIR SINGH, THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,27,950/- OUT OF RS.36,25,000/-. 6. ON THE CONTRARY IN RESPECT OF SH. JASBIR SINGH, THE LD . DR SUBMITTED THAT NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED BY SH. JASBIR SIN GH ON THE LOAN ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE A.O OBSERVED THAT THE S IGNATURES ON THE SLIPS DATED 14.09.2009 AND 30.04.2009 WERE NOT MA TCHING WITH ONE ANOTHER SIGNATURE ON THE ACCOUNT OPENING FORM OF SH. JASBIR SINGH IN PUNJAB & SIND BANK WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY SH . SUDHIR JAIN S/O SH. GULSHAN JAIN, (THE APPELLANT) AND EVEN OTHER WISE THE ACCOUNT WAS OPENED ON 12.06.2008 BUT THERE WAS NO TRANSACTION OTHER THAN WITH SH. GULSHAN JAIN AND FURTHER THE AO RIGHTLY QUE STIONED THE FILING OF THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF JASBIR SINGH AND WONDERED HOW HE FORGET TO MENTION HAVING ADVANCE RS.5 LAKH, TO THE APPELLANT IN FIRST AFFIDAVIT. ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 7 DETERMINATION 7. LET US TO CONSIDER THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF SH. JAS BIR SINGH . THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.26, 97,050/- TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT QUA FILING OF REVISED AFFIDAVITS OF SH. JASBIR SINGH TO THE EFFECT TH E AO CALLED FOR INFORMATION ONLY IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS, THEREFOR E, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKHS APPEARING IN THE PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE FIRST AFFIDAVIT. ON THE AFORESAI D SUBMISSION, THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLAN T TO BE ACCEPTABLE. FURTHER SINCE LOANS WERE ADVANCED THROUGH BAN KING CHANNEL THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT MENTIONING OF WRONG BANK NAME DOES NOT AMOUNT TO DISBELIEVING THE CO NTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SH. JASBIR SINGH. FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A ) OBSERVED THAT SH. JASBIR SINGH HAD CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION IN HIS TWO AFFIDAVITS AS WELL AS IN HIS STATEMENT U/S 131 RECORDED BY THE AO IN WHICH HE STATED AS TO BE AGRICULTURIST AND HIS FAMILY INCOME FROM AGRICUL TURAL ACTIVITIES WAS ABOUT 40 LAKHS PER ANNUM AND IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT A.O DID NOT DOUBT THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDI NG OF SH. JASBIR SINGH AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE AGRICULTURAL INCOM E CLAIMED BY SH. JASBIR SINGH. IT WAS FURTHER REALIZED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT SH. JASBIR SINGH U/S 131 HAD STATED THAT HIS FAMILY AGREED TO SELL AGRICULTURAL LAND TO BHARGAV BUILDERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI MEASURING 37 KANALS 12 MARLAS SITUATED IN DIST:- AMRITSAR AND 149 KANALS 9 MARLAS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN TARAN TARAN. I N PURSUANCE TO THAT FAMILY OF SH. JASBIR SINGH RECEIVED THE ADVANCE O F SALE OF LAND BY CHEQUES IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL NAMES WHICH INCLUDED RECEIVIN G A CHEQUE OF RS.41,72,454/- BY SH. JASBIR SINGH AND IN SUPPORT OF THAT SH. JASBIR SINGH FILED A COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SALE, HIS BANK ACCOU NT SHOWING DEPOSIT OF RS.41,72,454/- ON 12.04.2008 AND THE AO HA S NEITHER DOUBTED THE SAID FACTS NOR IDENTITY OF SH JASBIR SINGH . SIMPLY THE ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 8 ASSESSING OFFICER ON ITS OWN ASSUMPTION STATED THAT SIGNATUR ES ON THE SLIPS DATED 14.09.2009 AND 30.04.2009 WERE NOT MATCHI NG WITH ONE ANOTHER AND ARE DIFFERENT FROM HIS SIGNATURE ON THE ST ATEMENT. WE ARE IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AO HAS CASTED HIS DOUBT ON HIS OWN PRESUMPTION WITHOUT ANY REPORT OF THE HANDWRITIN G EXPERT AND HENCE, THIS CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS RELEVAN T CONSIDERATION FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE IN HAND. 7.1 NON-CHARGING OF INTEREST ON THE LOAN ADVANCED TO THE APPELLANT BY SH. JASBIR SINGH IS NOT CONSIDERED RELEVANT AS HIS F AMILY AND THAT OF THE APPELLANT HAD CLOSED FAMILY TIES AND HAVING BUSINE SS RELATIONS FOR THE LAST TWO GENERATIONS. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO WI TH REGARD TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.30 LAKHS BY SH. JASBIR SINGH FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN STATE BANK OF PATIALA ON 09.06.2008, THE L D. CIT(A) THOROUGHLY CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION FOR THE WITHDR AWALS OF THE SAID AMOUNT AND ADVANCING UNSECURED LOANS TO THE APPELLANT T HEREFROM. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT MERE FACT THAT THE CASH WA S KEPT AT HOME FOR MORE THAN 10 MONTHS BY SH. JASBIR SINGH AFT ER WITHDRAWING , CAN NOT INFERRED THAT THE CASH CREDIT WAS NOT GENUINE . 7.2 ACCORDING TO OUR MIND, THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O WAS NOT CORRECT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CREDITOR KEPT THE WITHD RAWAL MONEY AT HIS HOUSE FOR AN ABOUT 10 MONTHS THEREFORE ITS AUTHENTI CITY BECOMES DOUBTFUL, BECAUSE CO-ORDINATION BENCH AT AMRITSAR IN T HE CASE OF CHARAN LAL NAGPAL VS. JOINT CIT, ITA NO.278(ASR)/20 15 (2006) 102 TTJ (ASR) 890 DECIDED THE SAME ISSUE ON 22 ND FEB.2006 BY HOLDING THAT ' THE ASSESSEE BEING AN AGRICULTURIST WITHDRAWN THE AMOUNT FROM THE BANK AND KEPT AT HOME FOR 15 MONTHS BEFORE THE NEW CAR WAS PURCHASED, THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE, ASSESSEE HAD MADE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK DURING THIS PERIOD DOES NO T PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SALE OF OLD CAR WAS SPENT SOMEWH ERE ELSE. ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 9 HENCE, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT IN A NEW CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED' . ON THE AFORESAID CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T SIMPLY BY KEEPING MONEY AT HOME FOR A LONG PERIOD CAN NOT ITSEL F A GROUND TO DOUBT THE SAME UNTIL AND UNLESS THERE MUST BE EXTRANE OUS CIRCUMSTANCES. 7.3 IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED COPIES OF TWO SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS O F SH. JASBIR SINGH AND FIRST SALE DEED DATED 20.08.2008 WAS FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND MEASURING 56 KANALS 11 MARLAS SITUATED IN VILLAG E SAIDO LEHAL, TEHSIL BABA BAKALS, DISTRICT:-AMRITSAR BY SH. JASWANT S INGH, SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SHRI JASBIR SINGH AND MANJOT SINGH SON OF SHRI SANTOK SINGH S/O SHRI NATHA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE WADA LI DOGRA, AMRITSAR FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.35,35,000/- IN CASH. THE ST AMP DUTY PAID WAS RS.176,800/-. IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SALE DE ED THAT THE TOTAL EXPENSES ON THE SALE DEED HAVE TO BE BORNE BY TH E PURCHASER. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE TOTAL INVESTM ENTS BY THE SAID FOUR SONS OF SH. SANTOK SINGH, IN THE PURCHASE OF SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 20.08.2008 OF RS.37,11,800/-(RS.35,35000+176, 800). IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SH. JASBIR SINGH WAS ONE OF THE FOUR PURCHASERS OF THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND, THEREFORE, HIS SHARES OF INVESTMENT IN THE LAND COMES TO RS.927,950/- I.E. OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT RS.37,11,800/-. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, HELD THAT OUT OF RS.30,0 0,000/-, SOURCE OF LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.20,72,050/- WAS PROVED HENCE THE SAME IS DELETED , HOWEVER THE ADDITION OF RS.927,950/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT WAS CONFIRMED. 7.4. WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF 1,00,000/- AND RS. 5,00 ,000/- TOTALING TO RS.6,25,000/-, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT NO ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 10 SPECIFIC QUESTION WAS ASKED BY THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE SAME FROM, SH. JASBIR SINGH, WHO STATED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT LAND AT KARNAULI WAS SOLD TO SOMEONE IN JANDIALA GURU, TARAN ON CONSIDERATIO N OF RS.5,00,000/- AND EVEN OTHERWISE THE SAID SOURCE OF RS.5 ,00,000/- WAS NEVER BEEN DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFOR E, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS PLEASED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.26,97, 050/- ON THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS THAT THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED T HE CLAIM OF SH. JASBIR SINGH IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL IN COME OF THE FAMILY WAS NEARLY 40 LAKHS PER ANNUM AND MERE FACT THAT CASH KE PT AT HOME FOR MORE THAN 10 MONTHS BY SH. JASBIR SINGH AFTER WI THDRAWING FROM THE BANK DOES NOT PROVE THAT CASH CREDIT WAS NOT GENUINE AND ONCE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF SH. JASBIR SINGH TO A DVANCE THE ABOVE SUM OFRS.26,97,050/- TO THE APPELLANT IS ESTABLISHED, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF THE SAME U /S 68 OF THE ACT ACCORDINGLY THE LD CIT(A) IN OVERALL DELETED THE ADDI TION OF RS.26,97,050/-. 7.5. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE OB SERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT ON US IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE PRIMA FACIE THE TRANSACTION WHICH RESU LTED INTO CASH CREDIT IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SUCH PROOF INCLUDES PRO OF OF THE IDENTITY OF HIS CREDITOR, THE CAPACITY OF SUCH CREDITOR TO ADVANCE THE MONEY AND, LASTLY, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THESE THINGS MUST BE PROVED PRIMA FACIE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ONCE THE A SSESSEE HAS ADDUCED EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE THE AFORESA ID, THE ONUS SHIFTS ON THE DEPARTMENT. IF WE CONSIDER THE INSTANT CA SE, THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE 3 RD PARTY. ONCE THE IDENTITY OF THE 3 RD PARTY IS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY AND OTHER SUCH EVIDENCE ARE PRIMA-FACIE PLACED BEFORE HIM POINTING TO THE FACT THAT ENTRY IS NOT FICTITIOUS, THE INITIAL BURDEN LYIN G ON THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DULY DISCHARGED BY HIM. IT WILL N OT, THEREFORE, BE ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 11 FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN FURTHER AS TO HOW OR IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, THE THIRD PARTY OBTAINED THE MONEY AND HOW OR WHY H E CAME TO MAKE ADVANCE OF THE MONEY AS A LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE IN STANT CASE, ONCE SUCH IDENTITY IS ESTABLISHED AND THE CREDITORS HAVE PL EDGED ON THEIR OATH THAT THEY HAVE ADVANCED AMOUNTS IN QUESTI ON TO THE ASSESSEE, THE BURDEN IMMEDIATELY SHIFTS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEES CASE COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AND AS TO WHY IT MUST BE HELD THAT ENTRY, THOUGH PURPORTING TO BE IN THE NAME OF THE 3 RD PARTY, STILL REPRESENTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM SUPPRESSED SOURCES, AND IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT SUCH A CONCLUSION, EVEN DEPARTMENT HAS TO BE IN POSSESSION OF SUFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE MATERIA L AND REJECTION NOT ONLY OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, B UT OF THE EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE CRED ITORS , CANNOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO ANY INFERENCE REGARDING THE NON -GENUI NE OR FICTITIOUS TO THE CHARACTER OF THE ENTRIES IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF SHANKAR INDUSTRIES VS. CIT 114 I TR 669 (KOLKATA HIGH COURT), THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHILE DEALING WIT H SEC.68 OF THE ACT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 18. WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT THE LAW ON THIS POINT IS NOW WELL SETTLED. IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE PRIMA FACIE THE TRANSACTION WHICH RESULTS IN A CASH CREDIT IN HIS B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. SUCH PROOF INCLUDES PROOF OF THE IDENTITY OF HIS CREDITS , THE CAPACITY OF SUCH CREDITOR TO ADVANCE THE MONEY AND, LASTLY, THE GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THESE THINGS MUST BE PROVED PRIMA FAC IE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDUCED EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE THE AFORESAID, THE ONUS SHIFTS ON THE DEPARTMENT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED ONLY THE IDENTI TY OF THE CREDITOR AND NOTHING MORE. FURTHER THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAM NARAIN GOEL 91997)224 ITR 180 (P&H) WHILE DEALING WI TH THE SIMILAR ISSUE HELD AS UNDER: ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 12 THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME AS A COMMISSION AGENT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986 -87, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED FOUR CASH CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BOO KS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TAKING THE VIEW THAT ALL THE FOUR CREDIT ENTRIES WE RE BOGUS AND FICTITIOUS AND REPRESENTED THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,66,360/- TO THE ASSESEES INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE MONEYS HAD BEEN ADVANCED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQU ES AND HAD BEEN RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH INTEREST BY ACCOUNT P AYEE CHEQUES, THAT COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS HAD BEEN FILED, THAT THE CREDITORS HAD FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS, HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMI SSIONER (APPEALS) AND ADMITTED HAVING ADVANCED MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAD FILED RETURNS OF THEIR INCOMES. THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, TOOK THE VI EW THAT ALL THE CASH CREDITS STOOD DULY EXPLAINED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY ADDITION FOR ANY OF TH E CASH CREDIT ENTRIES. THE ENTIRE ADDITION WAS THUS DELETED. ON AN APPLICATION TO DIRECT A REFERENCE: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION, THAT NO QUESTION OF LAW AROSE FROM THE TRIBUNALS ORDER. THE FINDING OF FACT GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS BASED ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL CORRECTLY T OOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BOUND TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE L OANS, SUSPICION, HOWSOEVER, STRONG, COULD NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF EVID ENCE OR PROOF. FURTHER HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEMI CHAND KOITHARI VS. CIT 264 ITR 254 (GAUHATI) HAS DELETED TH E ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY HOLDING AS UNDER: A PERSON MAY HAVE FUNDS FROM ANY SOURCE AND AN ASSE SSEE, ON SUCH INFORMATION RECEIVED, MAY TAKE A LOAN FROM SUCH A P ERSON. IT IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE SO URCE OR SOURCES FROM WHICH THE CREDITOR HAD AGREED TO ADVANCE THE AMOUNT S WERE GENUINE OR NOT. IF A CREDITOR HAS, BY ANY UNDISCLOSED SOURCE, A PARTICULAR AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THE BANK, THERE IS NO LIMITATION UNDER THE LAW ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO OBTAIN SUCH AMOUNT OF MONEY OR PART THE REOF FROM THE CREDITOR, BY WAY OF CHEQUE IN THE FORM OF LOAN AND IN SUCH A CASE, IF THE CREDITOR FAILS TO SATISFY AS TO HOW HE HAD ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE SAID AMOUNT AND HAPPENED TO KEEP IT IN THE BANK, THE SAID AMOUNT CA NNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. HELD, (I) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SHOWN, IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE BURDEN, WHICH RESTED ON HIM UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDEN CE ACT, THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM BY WAY OF CHEQUES FROM THE CREDITORS WHICH WAS NOT IN DISPUTE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAD EST ABLISHED THESE, THE ASSESSEE MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE PROVED THAT THE CRED ITOR HAD THE CREDITWORTHINESS TO ADVANCE THE LOANS. THEREAFTER, THE BURDEN HAD SHIFTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE CONTRARY. THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE CREDITORS TO SHOW THAT THEIR SUB-CREDITORS HAD CRED ITWORTHINESS TO ADVANCE THE SAID LOAN AMOUNTS TO THE ASSESSEE, COULD NOT, U NDER THE LAW BE TREATED AS THE INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF THE ASSES SEE HIMSELF WHEN THERE WAS NEITHER DIRECT NOR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENC E ON RECORD THAT THE SAID LOAN AMOUNTS ACTUALLY BELONGED TO, OR WERE OWNED BY , THE ASSESSEE. THE ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 13 ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNTS, WHICH HAD COME TO THE HANDS OF THE CREDITORS FROM THE HANDS OF THE SUB-CR EDITORS, HAD ACTUALLY BEEN RECEIVED BY THE SUB-CREDITORS FROM THE ASSESSE E. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE TREATED THE SAID A MOUNTS AS INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT IT IS TRITE T O SAY THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO PROVE PRIMA FACIE THE TRANSACTION WHICH RESU LTS IN A CASH CREDIT IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SUCH PROOF INCLUDES PRO OF OF THE IDENTITY OF HIS CREDITORS, THE CAPACITY OF SUCH CREDITORS T O ADVANCE THE MONEY AND, LASTLY, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. WE REALIZE THAT IN THE INSTANCE CASE, THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT IN CONTROVERSY BECAUSE THE L OAN AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL BY MODE OF CHEQUES, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN A CCORDANCE WITH SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, THE ONUS OF BURDEN WHICH WAS FASTENED UPON THE ASSESSEE/ APPELLANT HAS BEEN DISCHARGED B ECAUSE THE SAID AMOUNT UNDER CONTROVERSY HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM BY WAY OF CHEQEUS FROM THE CREDITORS WHICH WAS NEVER BEEN DISPUTE D AND ONCE THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED SAID AMOUNTS FROM THE CREDITORS BY WAY OF CHEQUES, THE ASSESSEE MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE PROVED THAT THE CREDITORS HAD CREDITWORT HINESS TO ADVANCE THE LOANS, AND THEREFORE, THE BURDEN HAD SHIF TED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE CONTRARY. ON MERE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE CREDITORS, TO SHOW THAT THERE SUB-CREDITORS HAD CRED ITWORTHINESS TO ADVANCE THE SAID LOAN AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE, SUCH FAILURE, AS A COROLLARY , COULD NOT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN UNDER THE LA W TREATED AS THE INCOME FROM THE UNDISCLOSED SOURCE OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF, WHEN THERE WAS NEITHER DIRECT NOR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON R ECORD THAT THE SAID LOAN AMOUNTS ACTUALLY BELONGED TO, OR WERE OWNED BY, THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN OTHERWISE, FROM THE RECORD IT REFLECTS THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNTS TH AT WHICH HAD COME TO THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE HANDS OF THE SAI D ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 14 CREDITORS, HAD ACTUALLY BEEN RECEIVED BY THE SUB-CREDITOR S FROM THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE REVENUE DEPA RTMENT COULD NOT HAVE TREATED THE SAID AMOUNTS AS INCOME DERIVE D BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. WHILE COMING TO THE LOANS AMOUNT OF RS.36,25,000/- AD DED BY THE AO AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY GIVEN A RELIEF O F RS.26,97,050/- BY DELETING THE SAME BASED UPON THE IDENTITY OF THE CR EDITWORTHINESS OF SH. JASBIR SINGH AS WELL AS REALIZING THE GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTION AND EVEN OTHERWISE AS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT REPAYMENT OF LOAN HAS ALSO BEEN MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT P AYEE CHEQUES, THEREFORE, WE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE LD. C IT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF RS.26,97,050/- . WHILE COMING TO THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION TO THE T UNE OF RS.9,27,950/- AS IT REFLECTS FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) HE HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE PURCHASE OF ONE PROPERT Y BY SH. JASBIR SINGH AND HIS THREE BROTHERS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3 7,11,800/- (35,35,000/- AS SALE PRICE + 176,800/- AS STAMP DUTY). THE LD. CIT(A) DETERMINED THAT SH. JASBIR SINGH WAS ONE OF THE FOUR CO-PURCHASER OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HIS SHARE OF INVESTMENT IN T HE SAID LAND WAS RS.9,27,950/-. INDIRECTLY , THE LD. CIT(A) FASTENED TH E LIABILITY OF RS.9,27,950/- UPON SH. JASBIR SINGH, WHICH IN OUR CONSID ERED OPINION, WRONGLY DEDUCTED FROM RS.36,25,000/- WITHOUT CONSIDERI NG THE REAL FACT THAT SH. JASBIR SINGH SPECIFICALLY REPLIED THE QUEST ION NO.8.1 DURING THE STATEMENT U/S 131, THAT HIS FATHER HAD PAID THE WHOLE AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF THE LAND ON WHICH THE LD. CIT( A) HAS FASTENED THE LIABILITY. WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE T HE QUESTION NO.8.1 AND ITS ANSWER. QUESTION :- PLEASE TELL THE CONTRIBUTION WHICH WAS MADE BY YOU TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THIS LAND ? ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 15 ANSWER : I HAD NOT CONTRIBUTED ANYTHING TOWARDS THIS PURCHASE. MY FATHER HAD PAID THE WHOLE AMOUNT. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION HEREIN THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES DID NOT BRING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL IN RE BUTTABLE OF THE SAID FACTS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF HIS FAMILY WAS ALSO PROVE D BY SH. JASBIR SINGH BY STATING THAT HIS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURA L ACTIVITY IS ESTIMATED AT RS. 40 LAKHS PER ANNUM AND ONCE THE IDENTI TY OF THE CREDITOR, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHI NESS OF THE CREDITOR HAS BEEN DULY PROVED, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT RIGHT TO PARTLY CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.9,27,950/-, HENCE , WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE SAID ADDITION WAS BASED ON THE WRONG ASSUMPTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND/OR A NY CONTRARY MATERIAL. HENCE, WE ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF THE SAM E. IN RESULT , THE ADDITION OF RS.9,27,950/- SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) STANDS DELETED. 8. WITH REGARD TO THE LOAN OF RS.31 LAKH GIVEN BY SH. CHARAN SINGH , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT SH. CHARAN SING H FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 07.01.2013 IN SUPPORT OF THE UNSECURED LOANS ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH PNB, JANDIALA GURU, AMRITSAR AS U NDER: RS,14,00,000/- ON 28.01.2010 RS.12,00,000/- ON 29.01.2010 RS. 500,000/- ON 30.03.2010. IN AFFIDAVIT SH. CHARAN SINGH CONFIRMED THE ADVANCIN G OF LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS.31 LAKH TO THE ASSESSEE BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT AND ALSO CONFIRMED HIS STATEMENT RECORD U/S 131 AND HE ALSO EST ABLISHES THE SOURCE OF INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND FRO M SALE OF MILK OF ABOUT 60 COWS AND BUFFALOS. FURTHER ESTABLISHED THA T THE ANNUAL SAVINGS ARE RS.25,00,000/- APPROXIMATELY AND EVEN OTHE RWISE THE A.O HAS NOT DISPUTED THE CLAIM OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME A ND FROM SALE OF ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 16 MILK AS CLAIMED BY SAID CREDITOR IN HIS STATEMENT AND EVE N OTHERWISE WITH REGARD TO THE NON-CHARGING OF INTEREST, IT WAS CL ARIFIED BY THE SAID CREDITOR THAT HIS IN-LAWS WERE HAVING VERY GOOD RELATI ON WITH THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THEY DID NOT CHARGE ANY INTEREST. TH E SAID CREDITOR HAD STATED TO BE HAVING ANNUAL INCOME OF APPROXIMATEL Y 61 LAKHS FROM ALL SOURCES AND AFTER MEETING THE EXPENSES, HIS TOTAL SAV INGS WERE ABOUT 24 LAKHS PER ANNUM. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WRONGLY OBSERVED THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SH. CHARAN SINGH TO ADVANCE THE BALANCE OF RS.26,00,000/- IS NOT ESTABLISHED AND ON THE SAID REASON, THE ADDITION OF RS.26,00,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT IS CON FIRMED LD. D.R. ALSO RELIED UPON THE MANY JUDGMENTS WHICH AR E PART OF THE RECORD AND NOT REPEATED HEREIN FOR THE SAKE OF BR EVITY, HOWEVER, WILL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE ADJUDICATION OF T HE INSTANT CASE. 10. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR REPEATED THE SAME ARGUMENT AS RAISED ABOVE IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID PERSONS, HOWEVER , IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ACCOUNT OPENING FORM WAS INTRODUCED BY M/ S VIRU MAL MULKH RAJ JAIN WITH ACCOUNT NO. 87-4542 WHICH MATCHES WITH CC LIMIT ACCOUNT OF SH. GULSHAN JAIN, THE APPELLANT HEREI N HAS NOT MADE ANY TRANSACTIONS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT EXCEPT THE CASH DEPO SIT AND ISSUING CHEQUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME DAY WHEN THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED AND NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED. DETERMINATION 11. NOW COMING TO THE LOAN GIVEN BY SH. CHARAN SINGH. THE LD. CIT(A) ALTHOUGH WHILE RELYING UPON THE CREDI TWORTHINESS OF SH. CHARAN SINGH, TO ADVANCE THE UNSECURED LOANS TO THE TUNE OF RS.7, LAKH AND RS.5 LAKHS DELETED THE SAID AMOUNT HOWE VER CONFIRMNED THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.26,00,000/- BY OBSERVING ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 17 THAT SH. CHARAN SINGH HAD FILED AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING THE ADVANCING OF LOAN AGGREGATING TO RS.31 LAKHS TO THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME WAS ALSO CONFIRMED IN HIS STATEMENT U/S 131. FURTHER HE STATE D SOURCE OF INCOME IS FROM SALE OF MILK OF ABOUT 60 COWS AND BUFFAL OS AND ADMITTED ANNUAL SAVINGS OF RS.25 LAKH PER ANNUM AND THE SAID CREDITOR HAS SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECORDS AN D IN HIS STATEMENT BEFORE A.O. TO BE HAVING ANNUAL INCOME OF 6 1 LAKHS APPROXIMATELY , FROM ALL SOURCES AND AFTER MEETING THE EXPENSES HIS TOTAL SAVINGS WERE ABOUT 25,00,000/- PER ANNUM WHICH W AS NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY THE A.O. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE L D. CIT(A) THAT SH. CHARAN SINGH IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND HIS CLAIM THAT A COPY OF NET ANNUAL SAVINGS OF RS.23.8 LAKHS OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ALLIED ACTIVITIES AT HOME CANNOT BE DOUBTED. THE A.O H AS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ANNUA L SAVINGS OF RS.23.8 LAKHS OF SH. CHARAN SINGH IN THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION WAS UTILIZED ELSEWHERE INSTEAD OF ADVANCING AS LOAN TO THE APPELLANT, HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) BY HIS OWN NOTION, PRESUMPTI ON AND ASSUMPTION NOTED THE FACT THAT HOWEVER, THE EXPENDITUR E/INVESTMENT MADE BY SH. CHARAN SINGH IN PURCHASE OF HORSE AND OTHE R PERSONAL EXPENSES OUT OF HIS NET ANNUAL SAVINGS OF RS.23.8 LACS DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE DENIED IN VIEW OF HIS OWN ADMISSION IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION NO.6 IN HIS STATEMENT BEFORE TH E A.O. THE QUANTUM OF HIS EXPENDITURE, INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF HORSE AND PERSONAL EXPENSES OUT OF NET SAVINGS OF RS.23.8 LAKHS WAS, HOWEVER, IN THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF SH. CHARAN SINGH ONLY, THEREFORE, EXCEPT OF NORMALLY KEEPING RS. 5 LAKH AT HOME, IT IS HELD TH AT AT THE BEST, HE HAD CASH OF RS.5,00,000/- AVAILABLE AT HOUSE FOR ADVAN CING TO THE APPELLANT OUT OF HIS SAVING OF RS.23.8 LACS. 11.1 WE HAVE REALIZED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, THERE IS NO MA TERIAL ON RECORD THAT EXPENDITURE/INVESTMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE HORSE AND ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 18 OTHER PERSONAL EXPENSES WAS CARRIED OUT FROM THE SAVINGS O F RS.23.8/- LACS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THERE IS NO MA TERIAL AVAILABLE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE HORSES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FROM T HE SAID AMOUNT SPECIFICALLY AND EVEN OTHERWISE NO ADVERSE /CONTRA RY EVIDENCE ABOUT THE SOURCE AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR HA S BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. WHEREAS THE STATEMENT OF THE SAID CREDITOR H AS BEEN MADE ON OATH AS WELL AS IN REPLY U/S 131. THE STATEMENTS ARE CLEAR, LOGICAL, AND CONSISTENT AND ARE IN CONFIRMITY WITH THE CONTEXT O F THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD. 11.2 ON THE AFORESAID REASONS, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HESITATION TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.26,00,000/- WHICH WAS CONFIR MED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUNDS THAT ALTHOUGH THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR IS NOT IN DOUBT, HOWEVER, HIS CREDITWORTHINESS TO GIVE LOAN O F RS.26,00,000/- HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED . IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT SOURCE OF SOURCE CANNOT BE ASKED AND ONCE THE LOAN HAS BEEN ROUTED THROU GH BANKING CHANNEL AND REPAYMENT HAS ALSO BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKI NG CHANNELS THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE DOUBTED ON THE ASSUMPTIO N AND PRESUMPTION. IN THE RESULT, THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.26,00 ,000/- STANDS DELETED AND DELETION OF RS. 5,00,000/- AS DELETED BY LD CIT(A) IS UPHELD. 12. WITH REGARDS TO GURDEV SINGH , THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O RS. 16,25,000/- OUT OF WHICH 5,50,000/- WA S DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,50,000 . THE LD. AR REITERATED THE ARGUMENT AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW THAT SH. CHARAN SINGH BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMED TH E ADVANCES OF LOAN AGGREGATING TO RS.16,25,000 TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE SAID FACTS HAVE ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY HIS STATEMENT U/S 131(1) OF THE ACT AND THE SAID CREDITOR HA D DULY ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 19 EXPLAINED HIS SOURCE OF INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVIT IES AND ADMITTED HIS ANNUAL SAVINGS TO THE TUNE OF RS.17-18 LAK HS AND EVEN OTHERWISE, THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE AGRICULTURAL LAN D HOLDINGS OF 33 ACRE OR THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AND THE ANNUAL SAVING OF RS.17-18 LAKHS BY SH. GURDEV SINGH AND BEING AN AGRICULTURIST, KEEP ING THE CASH AT HOME WAS ALSO NOT DOUBTED AND WITH REGARD TO THE NON- CHARGING OF INTEREST, THE SAID CREDITOR REPLIED THAT HE IS ALSO USED TO TAKE MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE IF NEEDED AND THEIR RECIPROCAL CUSTOMS BET WEEN HIM. SH. GURDEV SINGH ALSO SHOWN OPENING CREDIT BALANCE TO T HE TUNE OF RS 30 LAKHS AS ON 01.04.2009 IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A ND THERE WERE FURTHER CREDITS ENTRIES OF RS.6,25,000/- ON 30.04. 2009 AND RS.10,00,000/- ON 15.09.2009 BY CHEQUES IN THE ACCOUNT OF SH. GURDEV SINGH IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS T HAT SH. GURDEV SINGH COULD HAVE ADVANCED OF RS.5,50,000/- TO THE APP ELLANT BY DEPOSITING CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND ISSUING CHEQUE IMM EDIATELY, THEREFORE, SH. GURDEV SINGH IS HELD TO BE CREDITWORTH INESS TO ADVANCE LOAN OF RS.5,50,000/- TO THE APPELLANT, HOWEVER, THE CREDITWORTHINESS TO THE TUNE OF RS.10,50,000/- AS LOAN TO THE APPELLAN T IS NOT ESTABLISHED. 13. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT INTRODUCER IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OPENING FORM WAS SON OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFOR E, THE A.O. DOUBTED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SAID CREDITOR. IT WAS ASLO ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO OTHER TRANSACTION IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SH. GURDEV SINGH EXCEPT CASH DEPOSITED AND CHEQUES ISSUED TO SH. GULSHAN JAIN AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME DATE WHEN THE CASH AMO UNTS WERE DEPOSITED ON 30.04.2009 AND 15.04.2009 AND THE A.O R IGHTLY QUESTIONED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT BY SH. GURDEV SINGH TO THE TUNE ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 20 OF RS.26,25,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OUT OF HIS ANNUAL SAVING FROM AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.1 7-18 LAKHS AND EVEN OTHERWISE NO INTEREST WAS BEING CHARGED BY SH. GU RDEV SINGH ON THESE ADVANCES AND NO REPAYMENT OF THE LOANS HAD ALSO BE EN MADE TILL DATE AND THE CASH OF RS.3 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED ON 30.10.2 009 IN BANK ACCOUNT OF SH. GURDEV SINGH BUT HE DID NOT REMEMBER T O WHOM HE HAD ADVANCED RS. 3,00,000/- THERE FROM, WHICH WAS IMPRO BABLE THAT HE DID NOT REMEMBER TO WHOM HE HAD GIVEN THE SUM OF RS.3 LAKH AS LOAN. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS CORRECTLY TREATED THE UNSEC URED LOAN OF RS.16,25,000/- FROM SH. GURDEV SINGH APPEARING IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. DETERMINATION 14. NOW COMING TO LOAN GIVEN BY SH. GURUDEV SINGH , THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND HO LDING OF 33 ACRES AND ANNUAL SAVINGS OF RS.17-18 LACS WAS NOT DOUBTED. SH . GURDEV SINGH CONFIRMED THE ADVANCING OF LOAN AGGREGATING TO RS.16,25,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT BY MAKING THE STATEMENT ON OAT H BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT AS WELL AS RECORDING STATEMENT U/S. 131 OF THE ACT AND EVEN FROM THE INCOME TAX RETURN PERTAINS TO F.Y 2007-08 QU A SH. GURDEV SINGH AND A.Y.2008-09 PERTAINS TO THE APPELLANT HERE IN THE TRANSACTIONS OF LOAN DULY APPEARED AND THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE A.Y.2008-09 WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT DOUBT ON THE LOAN TRANSACT ION DURING THAT PERIOD. THEREFORE, THE LOAN UNDER DISPUTE CANNOT BE DOUBTED. THE LD. CIT(A) ALTHOUGH DELETED THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,50,000/- BY TREATING AS GENUINE TRANSACTION, HOWEVER, THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF S H. GURDEV SINGH WAS DOUBTED BY OBSERVING THAT CAPACITY TO ADVA NCE THE BALANCE SUM OF RS.10.50,000/- AS LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 21 ESTABLISHED DUE TO THE FACT THAT SH. GURDEV SINGH CLA IMED HIS ANNUAL SAVING RS.17-18 LAKHS FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME, HOWEVER, HE WOULD HAVE ALSO INCURRED HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE WHICH IS ESTIMAT ED AT ABOUT RS.1 LAKH PER ANNUM AND NET ANNUAL SAVINGS FROM ALL SO URCES WERE ONLY RS.16 LAKHS ONLY AND OUT OF WHICH HE HAD GIVEN A LOAN OF RS.7,50,000/- TO SH. SUDHIR SINGH JAIN AND RS.3,00,00 0/- TO SOMEONE ELSE, THEREFORE, THE BALANCE CASH LEFT WITH HIM WAS RS.(1 6,00,000- 7,50,000-300,000)= RS.5,50,000 ONLY. 14.1 IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ONCE THE IDENTITY OF THE CR EDITOR, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS HAS B EEN DULY PROVED AND FROM THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF SH. GURDEV SING H INDICATES THAT THERE WAS OPENING CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.13,00,000/- AS ON 01.04.2009, FURTHER THERE WERE CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS.6, 25,000/- RS.10,00,000/- ON 15.09.2009 BY CHEQUES IN THE ACCOUNT OF SH. GURDEV SINGH IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IN THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FURTHER FROM THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF SH. G URDEV SINGH AND FINANCIAL YEAR: 2007-08 REVEALS CREDIT OF RS.5,0 0,000/- ON 13.04.2007 AND OF RS.3,00,000/- ON 02.05.2007 BY CHEU QES AND THE CREDIT BALANCES IN THE ACCOUNT OF SH. GURDEV SINGH AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2008 WAS RS.8, 00,000/-. THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF SH. GURD EV SINGH IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN F.Y.2008-09 R EVEALS CREDIT OF RS.5,00,000/- ON 24.03.2009 AND RS.5,00,000/- ON 30.0 3.2009 BY CHEUQES AND DEBIT OF RS.5,00,000/- BY CHEUQE NO.62439 O N 09.03.2009. THE CREDIT BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF SH. G URDEV SINGH AND THE APPELLANT AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2009 WAS THUS 13,00,000/-. ALTHOUGH, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED IN ITS ORDER THAT F ROM THE ABOVE ENTRIES IN THE ACCOUNT OF SH. GURDEV SINGH IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT, REVEALED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN RECEIVING LOANS FROM SH. GURDEV SINGH IN THE PAST SINCE F.Y.2007-08 A ND HAD ALSO BEEN RETURNING THE LOAN AND THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPE LLANT WAS ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 22 COMPLETED U/S 143(3) FOR F.Y. 2008-09 WHERE THE LOAN FROM GURDEV SINGH WAS ACCEPTED, HOWEVER, CONCLUDED THAT JUST BECAUSE TH E LOAN FROM SH. GURDEV SINGH WAS ACCEPTED IN THE PAST IS NO REA SON TO ACCEPT THE LOANS ADVANCED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY HIM TO THE APPELLANT, WHICH DEPENDS ON THE FACTS OF THE YEAR CONCERN ED. AS WE REASONED ABOVE THAT SH. GURDEV SINGH CONFIRMED THE LO ANS AMOUNT OF RS.16,25,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT HEREIN BY FILIN G AN AFFIDAVIT AS WELL CONFIRMING BY HIS STATEMENT U/S 131 BEFORE THE AO AND EVEN OTHERWISE THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN ROUTED THROUG H BANKING CHANNEL AND IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS THE LOAN FROM THE SAI D PERSON HAS NOT DOUBTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, WE FEEL T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) ACTED CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND LAW WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.10,50,000/- JUST ON THE BASIS OF HIS OWN CONJE CTURE AND SURMISES, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HESITATION TO D ELETE THE SAME. IN THE RESULT, THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.5,50,000/-, WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DELETED BY THE CIT(A ) STANDS CONFIRMED. REST AMOUNT OF RS.10,50,000/- WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) STANDS DELETED. 15. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.5, AS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY TH E LD. AR THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.25,000/- PAID TO SH. KEWAL KRISHNAN AND OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAW N TO THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY SH. KEWAL KRISHNAN ASSOCIATES TO THE EFFECT THAT HE HAD RECEIVED ONE CHEQUE NO.541871 DATED 30.12.2009 FOR RS. 25,00,000/- AGAINST MAINTAINING PROVIDENT FUND REGISTER FROM SH. GULSHAN JAIN. FURTHER SH. KEWAL KRISHNAN BY SHOWING HIS PAN NO. ABJK P7509C SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS ALREADY DECLARED THE SAID INCOME I N HIS ITR WITH INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 23 THE AFORESAID FACT GOES TO SHOW THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBJECTED TO THE INCOME TAX AND THEREFORE , THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 25000/- STANDS DELETED. 16. NOW, COMING TO THE APPEAL OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT PRE FERRED ONLY ON THE SOLE GROUND. LET US TO REPRODUCE THE GROU ND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A), HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT I N DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.72,72,050/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS AND WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAIL ED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE ISSUE OF THE CHEQUES AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS W AS NOT ESTABLISHED. ALSO, WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO VERIFY T HE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THESE CREDITORS WHICH WAS U SED AS UNSECURED LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUN TS, ISSUING CHEQUES AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS WERE NOT ESTABLISHED AND EVEN OTHERWISE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAI LED TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS QUA CREDITS WHICH WAS WEREWERE UTILIZED AS UNSECURED LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE, THER EFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT, IN DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.72,72,050/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 68 ON ACCOU NT OF UNSECURED LOANS. 27. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE G ROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AS WE HAVE ALREADY H ELD THAT THE PRIMA FACIE ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO DISCHARGE THE IN ITIAL BURDEN BY ESTABLISHING IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF SUCH CREDITORS TO ADVANCE THE MONEY AND LASTLY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. AS WE HAVE ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 24 THOROUGHLY ANALYZED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AS WELL AS OBSERVATION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS AND THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND/OR CAPACITY TO GRANT THE LOAN HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY MAKING STATEMENT ON OATH AS WELL AS U/ S 131 OF THE I.T. ACT AND ALSO SUBSTANTIATE BY FILING CORROBORATIVE E VIDENCES BY WAY OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES AND /OR JAMABANDI ETC. AND THEIR BANK STATEMENTS AND THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR POINTED OUT T HAT LOANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THROUGH CHEQUES ONLY AND THE LOANS REPAYMEN T HAVE ALSO BEEN DONE THROUGH CHEQUES ONLY AND THE REVENUE DEPART MENT FAILED TO BRING OUT ANY SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL CONTRARY TO THE SAID LOANS, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HESITATION TO HOLD THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHIN ESS AND GENUINENESS OF AMOUNTS OF LOANS AND EVEN OTHERWISE, FROM THE BANK STATEMENT, CONFIRMATION, AFFIDAVITS AND OTHER INCOME PA RTICULARS IT IS CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT NECESSARY EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER ONUS TO PROVE CONTRARY WAS UPON THE A .O. WHICH HE FAILED TO DISCHARGE, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION, THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT COMMITTED ANY ERROR FOR TREATING OF THE ABOVE LOAN RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY AS EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NOS. 264 & 327(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 25 ON THE AFORESAID ANALYZATION, WE ARE INCLINED TO DISMI SS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, HENCE, THE, SAME STA NDS DISMISSED. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED AND OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.1 0.2017. SD/- SD/- (T. S. KAPOOR) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:04.10.2017. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER