Shri Pintu, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3523/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6632 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3523/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PINTU, B-208, GALI NO.1, RAJVEER COLONY, GHAROLI EXTENSION, DELHI. PAN: ARVPP5359D VS ITO, WARD-60(4), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.R. MANJANI, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI N.K. BANSAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 30.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.05.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 5 TH MAY, 2016 OF THE CIT(A)-19, NEW DELHI, RELATING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TAKING THE CONTRACTS FOR PARKING SL OTS MAINLY IN CONNAUGHT PLACE AREA. THESE CONTRACTS WERE TAKEN FROM NDMC AND WERE SUBJE CTED TO TCS. IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE USED TO DECLARE HIS INCOME ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS AND NO ITA NO.3523/DEL/2016 2 BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED. FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,01,260/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE RETURN WAS REVISE D ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 DECLARING THE SAME INCOME. THIS RETURN WAS AGAIN R EVISED ON 14 TH JANUARY, 2013 DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,64,120/-. IN RE SPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 143(2)/142(1), THE ASSESSEE FILED VARIOUS DETAILS AS ASKED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM TIME TO TIME. HOWEVER, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NEVER PRODUC ED DESPITE BEING GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN HAS SHOWN GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.4,36,60,256/- AND DECLARED NET PROFIT OF RS.4,01,260/-. IN THE R EVISED RETURN, THE GROSS RECEIPT WAS DECLARED AT RS.3,87,90,014/- AND THE PROFIT DETERMI NED WAS RS.5,50,120/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE VARIOUS EXPENDITURE DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND VARIOUS ITEMS IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS P ER THE ORIGINAL RETURN AS WELL AS THE REVISED RETURN AND FOUND SUBSTANTIAL DISCREPANCIES IN THE FIGURES OF SALES AS WELL AS IN THE FIGURES OF OTHER EXPENSES. HE, THEREFORE, ASKE D THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DETAILS, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE P ROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AT 8%, DETERMINED THE PROFIT FOR TH E CURRENT YEAR AT 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPT ORIGINALLY SHOWN AT RS.4,36,59,429/- AND MA DE ADDITION OF RS.48,49,415/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.3523/DEL/2016 3 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER MADE ADDITION OF R S.20,50,340/- BY DISALLOWING PART OF THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF NON-SUBMISSION O F FULL DETAILS FOR HIS EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOAN FROM M/S GAUTAM & COMPANY, M/S V.K. CHAUHAN PAINTS, SHRI RAJPALI AND SHRI SAHAB RAM BHATI. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTA NTIATE THE SAME WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS SATISFACTION REGARDING THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WOR THINESS OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF FILIN G THE DESIRED DETAILS, SUBMITTED THAT SMT. RAJPALI IS THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS N OT ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX AND IT IS AN OLD LOAN. THE OTHER THREE CREDITORS ARE ASSESSE D BY YOU ( I.E., THE ASSESSING OFFICER). THEY ARE SHRI BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHAN, PROPRI ETOR OF M/S V.K. CHAUHAN PAINTS, SHRI SOHAN PRASHAD RAI WHO IS PROPRIETOR OF M/S GAU TAM & CO., AND SHRI SAHAB RAM BHATI. NO INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID TO ANY OF THESE P ERSONS EXCEPT SHRI BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHANS BANK. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHARED LOAN TAKEN BY SHRI BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHAN FROM BANK AND INTEREST CLAIMED IS PRO PORTIONATE TO INTEREST CHARGED BY THE BANK. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT S ATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED FROM THE CONFIRMATION S OF THESE PARTIES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT UNSECURED LOAN GIVEN BY SHRI SOHAN PR ASHAD RAI, PROPRIETOR OF M/S GAUTAM & COMPANY OF RS.18,50,000/-, SHRI BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHAN, PROPRIETOR OF M/S V.K. CHAUHAN PAINTS OF RS.98,20,537/- AND SHRI SAHA B RAM OF RS.18,00,000/- WERE GIVEN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SINCE C OPY OF THEIR ITR AND BANK STATEMENTS EVIDENCING THESE PAYMENTS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE AGAIN GAVE ITA NO.3523/DEL/2016 4 ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE FOL LOWING DETAILS. THE QUESTION NO.14 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER READS AS UNDER:- 'VIDE Q NO. 14 OF QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 19.12.2014 - YOU WERE REQUESTED TO FURNISH CONFIRMATION, ITR AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM UNSECURED LOANS HAVE BEEN TAKEN I.E. RS. 18,50,000/ - FROM M/S GAUTAM & CO., RS. 98,20,537/- FROM M/S V.K CHAUHAN PAINTS, RS. 1, 18,572/- FROM SH. RAJPALI AND RS. 18,00,000/- FROM SH. SAHAB RAM BHATI. HOWEV ER, ONLY CONFIRMATION OF THESE PARTIES COULD BE FURNISHED. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, PLEASE PRODUCE THESE PARTIES F OR VERIFICATION ALONG WITH THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS AND BANK STATEMENTS TO JUSTIFY THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS . 4.1 THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RESPONSE SUBMITTED AS UNDER :- 4 ALL LOANS EXCEPT FROM M/S. V.K CHAUHAN PAINTS A RE OLD ONES. CONSEQUENTLY BANK STATEMENTS OF CREDITORS ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR T HIS YEAR. IN REGARD TO M/S V.K. CHAUHAN PAINTS IS PROPRIETORSHIP OF SHRI BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHAN WHO IS ASSESSED WITH YOU AND HIS BANK ACCOUNTS ARE ALSO FILED IN HI S CASE. 5. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TA KEN AN AMOUNT OF RS.18.50 LAKHS FROM SHRI SOHAN PRASAD, RS.98,20,537/- FROM SHRI BR IJ GOPAL CHAUHAN AND RS.18,00,000/- FROM SHRI SAHAB RAM DURING ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2012-13, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- NAME OF THE PARTY DATE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT PERTAINING TO A.Y. SOHAN PRASAD RAI 06.03.2012 7,50,000 A.Y. 12-13 27.03.2012 11,00,000 A.Y. 12-13 BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHAN 31.03.2012 98,20,537 A.Y. 12-13 SAHAB RAM 26.05.2011 5,00,000 A.Y. 12-13 26.05.2011 5,00,000 A.Y. 12-13 09.08.2011 5,00,000 A.Y. 12-13 01.02.2011 3,00,000 A.Y. 12-13 ITA NO.3523/DEL/2016 5 6. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SATISFY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.36,50,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,55,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HO USEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE TO TAL INCOME AT RS.1,12,69,480/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE ELABORATE S UBMISSIONS. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) ALSO WAS NOT FULLY SATISFIED WITH THE ARGUME NTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHILE HE DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOU SEHOLD EXPENSES AND PART DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES, HE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF GP AND THE ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS. 8. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS I N LAW IN DETERMINING PROFIT OF RS.34,92,755/- IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT 8% IS APPLICABLE U/S. 44AD WHERE TURNOVER IS BELOW RS.40 LAKHS AND NOT IN CASE S WHERE TURNOVER IS RS.3,87,90,014/-. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN TAKING TURNOVER OF RS.4,36,59,429/- AGAINST THE CORRECT TURNOVER OF RS .3,87,90,014/- SPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NO MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF TURNOVER OF RS.4 ,36,59,429/-. 3. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF LOANS OF RS.36,50,000/- IN NAMES OF SHRI SOHAN P RASAD RAI AND SHRI SAHAB RAM EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE REGULAR ASSESSEES IN THE S AME WARD IN WHICH THE APPELLANT BEING ASSESSED, ALL DETAILS, BALANCE SHEE T ETC OF THESE PARTIES ARE WITH THE LD. A.O., THEIR CONFIRMATIONS WERE DULY FILED W ITH THE LD. A.O. AND LOANS ARE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DIS CHARGED HIS ONUS AND DEPARTMENT HAS NOTHING AGAINST THIS. ITA NO.3523/DEL/2016 6 4. WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DETERMINED THE INCOME BY A PPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 8%, HE SHOULD HAD DELETED INCOME OF RS.5,50 ,120/- WHICH IS SEPARATELY ASSESSED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT INCOME SHOWN BY THE A PPELLANT MAY BE HELD TO BE ORDERED TO BE ACCEPTED . 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REFERRING TO T HE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH, 2012, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEI VED PARKING RECEIPT OF RS.3,87,90,014/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN AMOUN T OF RS.2,82,42,269/- TO NDMC TOWARDS PARKING FEE. REFERRING TO PROFIT & LOSS ACC OUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH, 2013, HE SUBMITTED THAT AS AGAINST PARKING R ECEIPT OF RS.3,36,65,632/-, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,62,55,094/- TO THE NDMC TOWARDS PARKING FEES. HE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH, 2013, RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED ASSESSMEN T ORDER U/S 143(3) BY DISALLOWING CERTAIN EXPENSES ON AD HOC BASIS @ 20% AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,55,947/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, ESTIMATION OF PROFIT @ 8% ON THE INCORRECT RECEIPTS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE CORRECT RECEIPT DURING THE YEAR IS ONLY RS.3,87,90,014/- AS FILED IN THE REVIS ED RETURN BECAUSE THE AUDITORS IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN HAS MADE THE PARKING RECEIPT OF ONE OF THE SLOTS TWICE FOR WHICH THIS DISCREPANCY HAPPENED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE H AS TERMINATED HIS SERVICES AND APPOINTED A FRESH AUDITOR. SO FAR AS THE UNSECURED LOANS ARE CONCERNED, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REQUISITE DETAILS B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY PRODUCING ALL THE DETAILS, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. REFERRIN G TO VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK, ITA NO.3523/DEL/2016 7 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATI ONS OF THE PARTIES, THEIR BANK STATEMENTS, INCOME-TAX RETURNS, ETC. AND, THEREFORE , NO ADDITION U/S 68 IS JUSTIFIED. 10. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NEVER PRODUCED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID HUGE INTEREST DURING THE YEAR WHICH IS MISSING IN THE NEXT YEAR WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG IN THE ACCOUNTS PRESENTED BY THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO PAGE 8 AND 10 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE F INDINGS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) WHILE REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS AND SUSTAINING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ESTIMATING PROFIT @ 8%. 10.1 SO FAR AS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN IS CONCERNED, THE LD. DR DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE FINDINGS GIV EN BY THE CIT(A) AT PARA 15 OF HIS ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 15, I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS. THE APPELLANT H AD VERIFIED RECORDS OF SH. BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHAN AND AFTER CONFIRMING THE LOAN, N O ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF SH. BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHAN. HOWEVER, NO DETA ILS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF SOHAN PRASAD RAI AND SA HAB RAM. HE HAS MERELY STATED THAT SAME ARE OLD LOANS, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAD SHOWN IN HIS ORDER THAT THEY ARE NEW LOANS TAKEN DURING THE YEAR . ALTHOUGH IN THE SUBMISSIONS, THE APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BE EN FILED BUT THE SAME WERE NOT FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS & NOT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. SINCE NO PARTICULARS OF THE UNSECURED CREDITORS WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HE CANNOT BE EXPE CTED TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS & CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE PERSONS. TH E APPELLANT HAS NOT EVEN PROVED THE IDENTITY OF SUCH PERSONS. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. ITA NO.3523/DEL/2016 8 11. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BE DISMISSED. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS AN ADMITTED FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ESPITE OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED. FURTHER, THERE IS HUGE DISCREPANCY IN THE AMOUNT OF GROSS RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE REJECTION OF BOOK RE SULTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FULLY JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 8% OF THE TURNOVER APPEARS TO BE ON THE HIGHER SIDE. EVEN IF FOR A MINUTE IT IS ADM ITTED THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AT RS.4,36,60,256/- IS ACCEPTED , HOWEVER, THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY IN THE AMOUNT OF PARKING FEES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO NDMC AT RS.2,82,42,269/- WHICH CONSTITUTES ABOUT 65% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS. THERE IS ALSO NO MAJOR DISCREPANCY IN THE SALARY & WAGES, POWER & FUEL, CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, ETC. THEREFORE, ESTIMATING THE PROFIT AT 8% IN OUR OPINION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. CONSI DERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ESTIMAT ION OF NET PROFIT @ 4% OF THE TURNOVER AS PER THE ORIGINAL RETURN AT RS.4,36,60,2 56/- WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WILL COMPUTE THE NP AT 4% OF RS.4,36,60,256/- AND RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE AFT ER DEDUCTING THE INCOME ALREADY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDIN GLY. ITA NO.3523/DEL/2016 9 13. SO FAR AS GROUND RELATING TO ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN FROM VARIOUS PARTIES IS CONCERNED, I T IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CHANGING HIS STAND FROM TIME TO TIME. ORIGINALLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE LOANS ARE OLD OUTSTANDING LOANS WHEREAS IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ALL THESE LOANS WERE OBTAINED DURING THE YEAR ITSELF. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN DETAILS, HOWEVER, THESE WERE NOT SUFF ICIENT ENOUGH. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THEY ARE BEING ASSESSED UNDE R HIM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED THE RETURNS OF THOSE LOAN CREDITORS WHO WERE ASSESSED UNDER HIM TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER THEY HAVE ALSO DISCLO SED THE SAME IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS THE SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT FOR ACCEPTING ANY CASH CREDIT, THE ONUS IS ALWAYS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVID ENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH FILED CERTAIN DETAILS AND TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME BEFOR E US ALSO THAT ALL THESE LOANS ARE REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPECTIVE LO AN CREDITORS, HOWEVER, IT NEEDS FURTHER VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTIC E, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE RELATING TO ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT FOR FRESH AD JUDICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE LAW, AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOL D AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE ITA NO.3523/DEL/2016 10 SECOND ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AC CORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.2019. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: MAY, 2019 DK COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI