Fairdeal Motors & workshop P.Ltd., Srinagar V. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Srinagar

ITA 343/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63457 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: VK SABHARWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Onus to prove
• Section: 68; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.343(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN :AAACF8573E M/S. FAIRDEAL MOTORS & WORKSHOP VS. ADDL. COMMR OF INCOME-TAX, PVT. LTD. PARIMPORA, SRINAGAR. SRINAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. V.K. SABHARWAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY:SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR DATE OF HEARING:27/08/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:05/09/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BATHINDA, DATED 30.06.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) BATHINDA HAD ERRED IN LAW I N CONFIRMING THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.97,20,000/- AND RS.26,34 ,597/- AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT APPLIED BY THE A.O. TO THE AMOUNTS APPEARING UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDITORS IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS WITHOUT REJECTIN G THE ASSESSEES REQUEST TO CALL FOR INFORMATION U/S 131/ 133 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 2 A) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) BATHINDA HAS WRONGLY CONFRME D THE ADDITIONS OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED AS ADVANCE FOR BOOKI NG OF VEHICLES, IN RESPECT OF PARTIES WHERE SUBSEQUEN TLY ADVANCE HAS BEEN RETURNED IN CASH. D) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE AD DITION BASED ON THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DCI T IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE LD. AD DL. CIT, SRINAGAR. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS HIS RIGHT TO AMEND ALT ER OR CHANGE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME EVEN DURING THE COURS E OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL. 3. THAT THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY DEALING IN COMMERCIAL AND PASSENGER VEHICLE S AND RUNNING AUTO WORKSHOP. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE SUNDRY CREDI TORS AND HAD SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION AS ADVANCES RECEIVED AGAINST SUPPL Y OF THE VEHICLES. AS REGARDS THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS.97,20, 000/- FROM 19 DIFFERENT PERSONS, THE SAME WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN CASH, AS PER LIST OF THE PERSON AVAILABLE AT PAGE 17 OF AOS ORDER. THE ASS ESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO SUBMIT THE EXPLANATION A ND THE ADVANCES WITH REGARD TO THE REFUND OF THE SAID AMOUNT AND THE MOD E OF THE PAYMENT AND THE ADVANCE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. THE AO C ONDUCTED INQUIRY FROM THE BANK. THE RESULT OF THE INQUIRY WAS INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER TAKING EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS NOT FOUND SA TISFACTORY FOR THE 3 REASONS STATED BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER AT PAGES 14 T O 17 WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 1. THERE IS SIMILAR TREND WITH RESPECT TO THE RECEI PT OF CASH FROM THE PERSONS WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO REPRESENT RECE IPT OF ADVANCE FOR BOOKING OF VEHICLES.ALMOST ALL THE PAYMENTS REL ATE TO PERSONS FROM LEH OR KARGIL. 2. ALL ALLEGED ADVANCES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN CASH AS AGAINST RECEIPT BY CHEQUE IN RESPECT OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM ACTUAL DELIVERY OF VEHICLES IN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE. 3. IN CASE WHERE DELIVERY OF VEHICLES IN GIVEN, THE SAME IS DONE WITHIN A PERIOD OF A FEW DAYS FOR A MONTH. HOWEVER, IN RESP ECT OF THE ALLEGED ADVANCES WHICH WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF ENQUIRY, NO D ELIVERY OF VEHICLES WAS MADE EVEN UPTO OR MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER ALLEGE D BOOKING OF THE VEHICLES. IN ALL THESE CASE, REFUND OF THE ALLEGED ADVANCES WERE MADE MOSTLY AFTER 6 MONTHS AND, IN MANY CASES EVEN UPTO AND AFTER A YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION AS TO UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES DELIVERY OF VEHICLES WAS NOT MADE IF THE ALLEGED PERSONS HAD INFACT BOOKED THE VEHICLES. 4. ALL PERSONS FROM LEH GIVING ADVANCES MOSTLY IN NOVE MBER AND FEBRUARY AND IN SOME CASES, IN DECEMBER AND MARCH. 5. IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT PEOPLE FROM LEH AND KR GIL WOULD DEPOSIT HUGE SUMS OF MONEY RUNNING INTO LAKHS OF RUPEES DUR ING THE EXTREME WINTER MONTHS WHEN THE HIGHWAY IS CLOSED AND DELIVE RY OF VEHICLES IN NOT POSSIBL. EVEN IF DELIVERY WAS TO BE TAKEN AT S RINAGAR, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO TAKE THE SAME TO KARGIL.. IN ANY CASE, IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO DELIVERY OF VEHICLES TO THESE ALLEGED PERSONS WAS GIVEN. 6. IN CASE WHERE REFUND OF THE ALLEGED ADVANCES WERE M ADE, ALL THE REFUND WAS MADE BY BEARER CHEQUES WHICH IS AGAINST NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE AND DEFILES ANY BUSINESS LOGIC. NO PRUDENT BUSINES SMAN WOULD GIVE PAYMENTS OF SEVERAL LAKHS OF RUPEES IN CASH AND NOT BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. 7. IN ALL CASES, CHEQUES APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED AT SRINAGAR. IN ALMOST ALL THE CSE, THE ALLEGED SUNDRY CREDITORS COMES TO JAMMU FOR ENCASHMENT OF THE CHEQUES. SINCE, THE BEARER CHEQUES HAVE BEE N ENCASHED AT JAMMU OR SRINAGAR, SURELY THEY WOULD HAVE GONE BACK TO LE H CARRYING, SUCH HUGE AMOUNTS IN CASH WHICH DEFILES ALL LOGIC. IF T HESE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE GENUINE, THE COMPANY WOULD HAVE ISSUED ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, WHICH IS THE NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE. 4 8. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THESE PERSONS DE MANDED REFUND IN CASH, THE SAME WOULD NOT HELP AND CSE OF THE ASSESS EE SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO REFUND THE AMOUNT IN CAS H. NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE SHOWS THAT THE REFUND SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAD E BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY WHICH IS DEALING WITH ONE OF THE BIGGEST AUTOMOBILES COMPANIES OF THE COU NTRY. 9. IF BOOKINGS BY THE ALLEGED PERSONS WERE MADE IN LEH AND CASH DEPOSITED WITH THE BOOKING AT LEH, THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED AN D GIVEN AT SRINAGAR, WHICH WERE IN MOST CSES ENCASHED AT JAMMU. HOW WOU LD THE PERSON ISSUING THE CHEQUES, THAT TOO BEARER CHEQUES, IDENT IFY THAT THE PERSON TO WHOM CHEQUES ARE GIVEN IS THE SAME PERSON WHO GIVEN THE ADVANCE. 10. AS DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER EARLIER, IT HAS BEEN ESTA BLISHMENT THAT IN SOME CASES, THE BEARER CHEQUES ISSUED IN THE NAME OF AN ALLEGED SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE GIVEN ADVANCE AGAINT BOOKING OF VEHICLES AND ALSO TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE T RANSACTIONS WITH THEM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. IN FACT , NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED WHICH WOULD SHOW ACTUAL AND GENUINE RECEIP T OFADVANCE FROM THESE PERSONS. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO PRO VED THE IDENTITY OF THESE PERSONS INSPITE OF OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE A SSESSEE. INFACT, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEA RING, I.E. 29.12.2008 AND, IT DID NOT EVEN SEEK AN ADJOURNMENT ON THE SAID DATE. THIS ONLY PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF T HESE PERSONS OR GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WITH THESE PERSONS A ND HAS NO EXPLANATION TO OFFER IN THIS REGARD. AS STATED EARLIER AND AS INF ORMED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 18.12.2008 AND, DURING THE COURSE OF T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON 26.12.2008, THE ONUS TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CRED IT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. THE RESULTS OF THE ENQUIRES CONDUCTED BY CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE CREDITS WERE ALSO INFORME D TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED NO EXPLANATION, N OR HAS IT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO EVEN SUGGEST THAT THESE CREDITS WERE GE NUINE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE FOLLOWING CREDITS IN THE BOOKS OF THE AS SESSEE ARE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 5 S.NO. NAME AMOUNT (RS.) 1 AB.AHAD GUJREE 5,70,000/- 2 AB. MAJID BHATT. 4,00,000/- 3 ANGCHOK WANGCHOK 5,00,000/- 4 GH. ABAS 4,85,000/- 5 LIAQAT ALI 5,00,00/- 6 MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN 5,00,00/- 7 NISSAR ALI 5,00,00/- 8 PUNCHOK AUCHOK 5,00,00/- 9 SONAM ANGECHOK 5,00,00/- 10 TASHIR DORJAY 5,00,00/- 11 TESWING THUSUSUG 6,35,000/- 12 TSERING DORJAY 5,00,000/- 13 TSERING NAMGIAL 4,30,000/- 14 TSERING PALDIAN 5,00,000/- 15 ZAKIR HUSSAIN 5,00,000/ 16 SONAM WANGIAL 5,00,000/ 17 GH. MOHD. BHATT 5,00,000/ 18 MOHD. MUSSA 6,00,000/- 19 NAWANG NAMGYAL 6,00,000/- TOTAL 97,20,000/- IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED DISCUSSIONS AND REASONS, TH E AMOUNT OF RS. 97,20,000/- IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND ADDED TO THE TOT AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 3.1. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT TH E ADVANCES DECLARED AGAINST THE VEHICLES AMOUNT TO RS.4,42,89,749/- ALO NGWITH DETAILS OF THE REFUND OR DELIVERY OF THE VEHICLES. THE DETAIL OF S AID ADVANCES IS AVAILABLE AT AOS ORDER, PAGES 19 TO 24. THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN DID NOT SUBMIT THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES AND ACCORDINGL Y, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4,42,89,749/-. 6 3.2. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADVANCES OF RS.97.20 LAKHS AND THE DETAILS OF THE DELIVERY OF VEHICLES AND OTHER EXPLA NATION WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.4,42,89,749/-. THE LD. CIT(A) FORWAR DED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONGWITH DETAILS TO THE AO WHO AFTER G IVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THE REMAND R EPORT TO THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER TAKING THE COMMENTS AND EXPLAN ATION FROM THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.97.20 LACS FO R THE ADVANCES FOR WHICH NO SUPPLY HAS BEEN MADE AND REFUND HAD BEEN CLAIMED THROUGH THE BEARER CHEQUES.AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.4,42,89,749/- , THE ASSESSEE PROVED THE SUPPLY OF THE VEHICLES AMOUNTING TO RS.3,89,36,234/ -. THERE WAS DOUBLE ADDITION OF RS.14.85 LACS. AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,33,91 8/- WAS RETURNED BACK FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE CERTIFICATE FR OM THE BANK WITH REGARD TO FOUR PERSONS IS A MATTER OF RECORD AT PAGE 27 OF TH E LD. CIT(A)S ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.4,16,55,152/- AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.26,34,597/-. THE REVEN UE IS NOT IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. V.K. SABHA RWAL, ADVOCATE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE COMPLETE LIST OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, MODE OF PAYMENT AND DELIVERY PARTICULARS. THE AO WA S ASKED TO SUMMON 7 THE CREDITORS BUT THE SAME WAS NOT DONE. THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT (TM) DELHI B ENCH, IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S. ANIMA INVESTMENT LTD. (2000) 68 TTJ ( DEL) (TM) 1 AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. REPORTE D IN 159 ITR 78 (SC). MR. V.K. SABHARWAL, ADVOCATE, PRAYED THAT THE ADDIT IONS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE BAD IN LAW, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD E STABLISHED THE THREE ELEMENTS OF CASH CREDITS I.E. IDENTITY, CREDIT WORT HINESS AND GENUINENESS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.97.20 LAKHS FROM 19 D IFFERENT PERSONS, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AT PAGES 16 TO 20 OF LD. CIT(A)S ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE ADVAN CES FROM ALL THE 19 PERSONS IN CASH IS NOT UNDER DISPUTE. NONE OF THE P ERSONS STATED TO HAVE GIVEN THE ADVANCE, IS ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX. IT WA S CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDRESSES OF THESE PERSONS ARE OF LADAKH R EGION OF JAMMU & KASHMIR WHERE THE INCOME IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10 (26) OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS 8 TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE SAID 19 PERSONS. NO DELIVERY OF ANY VEHICLE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO SAID PERSONS CLAIMED TO BE THE CREDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO A FACT , WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE ASSESSEE, AT ANY S TAGE THAT DELIVERY OF VEHICLES IS GIVEN WITHIN A PERIOD OF FEW DAYS TO M AXIMUM OF ONE MONTH. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF SAID ADVANCES, NO DELIVERY O F VEHICLES WAS MADE EVEN AFTER SIX MONTHS OF TAKING THE ADVANCES. ALL T HE PERSONS ARE FROM LEH HAD HAD GIVEN ADVANCES MOSTLY IN NOVEMBER AND FEBRU ARY AND IN SOME CASES DECEMBER AND MARCH. THE PROBABILITY STATED B Y THE AO THAT HOW THE PEOPLE OF LEH AND KARGIL WOULD DEPOSIT HUGE SUMS OF MONEY RUNNING INTO LAKHS OF RUPEES DURING THE EXTREME WINTER MONTHS WH EN THE HIGHWAY IS CLOSED AND DELIVERY OF VEHICLES IS NOT POSSIBLE. I T IS ALSO HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT PERSON STATED TO HAVE GIVEN THE ADVANCES AND K EPT SILENT FOR SIX MONTHS TO MORE THAN A YEAR AND THEREAFTER BEARER CHEQUES W ERE GIVEN WHICH IN FACT WERE ENCASHED IN JAMMU OR SRINGAR. THE OTHER PROBAB ILITIES LISTED OUT BY THE AO ARE QUITE CONVINCING TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED ITSELF ITS OWN MONEY AND HAD ENCASHED THE SAME BY ISSUING BEAR ER CHEQUES. IN FACT, CERTAIN AMOUNTS AS PER EVIDENCE BY THE AO HAVE BEE N TRANSFERRED ULTIMATELY TO THE ASSESSEES OWN ACCOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN AS REPAYMENT TO THE STATED CUSTOMERS. MOREOVER, AS IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE S 16 TO 19 BEING THE 9 EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, THE PERSONS WHO HAD STATED TO HAVE GIVEN THE ADVANCES TO THE ASSESSEE ARE MAKING THE REQUEST ON A PARTICULAR DATE, WHICH IS SIX MONTHS TO MORE THAN A YEAR OF THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH BY THE SAID PERSONS. THE DATE ON WHICH THE STATED CUSTOMER MAKES REQUEST TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE ISSUES CHEQUE ON THE SAME DA TE TO THE STATED CUSTOMER IN THE CASE OF ALL SAID 19 PERSONS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME ALL THE CUSTOMERS REMAINED SILENT FOR ALL THE SIX MONTHS TO MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER DEPOSITING CASH WITH THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BEING WIT HOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR ANY COGENT EXPLANATION. NOTHING HAS BEE N BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR EVEN BEFORE US TO PROVE THAT THE STATED DEPOSITORS HAD REMAINED SILENT FOR SIX MONTHS TO MORE THAN A YEAR AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WHENEVER THEY MADE A REQUE ST ON A PARTICULAR DATE, THE BEARER CHEQUE WAS ISSUED TO THE SAID STATED DEP OSITOR. THIS THEORY WAS A CONCOCTED STORY OF THE ASSESSE IS NOTHING BUT MEREL Y A DEPOSIT OF ITS OWN MONEY ON DIFFERENT DATES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EV IDENCE OR COGENT EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORT HINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WHILE RECORDING RECEIPTS OR REFUND S OF THE SAID MONEY, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), W HO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.97.20 LAKHS. 10 6.1. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.26,34,597/-, THE ASSESSEE IN THE REMAND REPORT EVEN COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY EXPLANATION WITH R EGARD TO THE SAID DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT FURNISHED ANY IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OR GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S WITH REGARD TO THE ADVANCES CLAIMED TO THE TUNE OF RS.26,34,597/-. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT EXPLANATION OR ANY EVIDENCES OR PAPER BOOK, THE CAS ES RELIED UPON, THEREFORE, DO NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTIO N OF THE A.O. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.26,34,597/-. THUS, GRO UND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO. 2 & 3 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NO T REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.343(ASR)/2010 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE DATED: 5TH SEPT., 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. FAIRDEAL MOTORS & WORKSHOP PVT. L TD. SRINAGAR. 2. THE ADDL. CIT, R-3, SRINAGAR. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR.