ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Prem Kumar & Sons (HUF), Delhi

ITA 3588/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6720 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Period of limitation; Additional evidence; Time period of passing order
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.AS. NO.3588/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 ITO, WARD-38(2), NEW DELHI V. SHRI PREM KUMAR & SONS (HUF), A-1/1, PRASHANT VIHAR ROHINI, DELHI. TAN/PAN: AAAHP 5990A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.188/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 SHRI PREM KUMAR & SONS (HUF), A-1/1, PRASHANT VIHAR ROHINI, DELHI. V. ITO, WARD-38(2), NEW DELHI TAN/PAN: AAAHP 5990A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, SR.D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SACHIN KUMAR, CA DATE OF HEARING: 17 01 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28 02 2019 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA JM: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST IMPUGNED OR DER DATED 23.03.2015, PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS)-13, NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT PASSED U /S.143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, I.T.AS. NO.3588/D/2015 & CO NO.188/DEL/2018 2 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF RS.67,46 ,400/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDI TORS TREATED AS BOGUS PURCHASES AND ALSO ADDITION OF RS.11,70,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF MENTHOL AND MENTHA OIL UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. RAJHANS ENTERPRISES. LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.25,80, 815/- AND SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE TUNE OF RS.67,70,580/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE NAME AND ADDRE SS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND SUNDRY CREDITORS. IN RESPONSE, T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS AND THE ADDRESSES. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 133(6) TO SUNDRY CREDIT ORS, MOST OF THEM ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER RETURNED UN DELIVERED OR REMAINED NON-COMPLIED WITH. HE ALSO ISSUED SUMMO NS U/S.131 TO THE PERSONS WHO HAD GIVEN UNSECURED LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R NONE ATTENDED IN RESPONSE. ACCORDINGLY, HE TREATED ALL T HE SUNDRY CREDITORS AS UNEXPLAINED OR BOGUS CREDITS AND ADDED THE SAME. THE DETAILS OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AS WELL A S FINDINGS FOR CONFIRMING THE SAME READ AS UNDER: THE STATUS OF THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) TO SUND RY CREDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:- S. NO . NAME OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNT ON 31/3/8 DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 133(6) DATE FOR REPLY DELIVERY STATUS REPLY STATUS AMOUNT 1 PRAKASH CHEMICAL 24,180.00 16-12-2010 20-12-2010 DELIVERED RECEIVED 24,180.00 2 M.K.S. AROMATICS 47,88,280.00 16-12-2010 20-12-2010 DELIVERED NO REPLY N.A. I.T.AS. NO.3588/D/2015 & CO NO.188/DEL/2018 3 3 TIRATH SINGH 3,02,400.00 16-12-2010 20-12-2010 RETURNED N.A. N.A. 4 KAMAL SINGH 2,01,600.00 16-12-2010 20-12-2010 DELIVERED NO REPLY N.A. 5 BALBIR SINGH 2,01,320.00 16-12-2010 20-12-2010 DELIVERED NO REPLY N.A. 6 PARMJEET SINGH 4,17,600.00 16-12-2010 20-12-2010 DELIVERED NO REPLY N.A. 7 GURDEV SINGH 3,13,200.00 16-12-2010 20-12-2010 RETURNED N.A. N.A. 8 HARPRIT SINGH 5,22,000.00 16-12-2010 20-12-2010 DELIVERED NO REPLY N.A. TOTAL 67,70,580.00 IT CAN BE OBSERVED FROM THE ABOVE SUMMARY, THAT ONL Y ONE OF THE SUNDRY CREDITOR, WITH BALANCE OF MERE RS 24,180/- O UT OF TOTAL SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS 67,70,580/- REPLIED AND CONF IRMED THE BALANCE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. NONE OF THE REM AINING SUNDRY CREDITORS CONFIRMED THEIR BALANCES. IT WAS ALSO NOT ED THAT A FEW NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) TO UNSECURED CREDITORS RE TURNED UNDELIVERED AND THE AR ALSO NEVER PROVIDED ANY NEW ADDRESS OR ANY OTHER JUSTIFICATION FOR THE NON-DELIVERY OF THE NOT ICES INSPITE OF BEING SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR THE SAME. DURING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AR COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY OF THE SUN DRY CREDITORS. THEREFORE, THE IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENU INENESS OF THE UNSECURED CREDITORS REMAINED UNVERIFIED. MORE SO, T HE SUNDRY CREDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO REMAINED UNCONFIRMED AND THEIR AUTHENTICITY ALSO REMAINED UNPROVEN. (THE BALANCES OF SUNDRY CREDITORS TO WHOM NOTICE U/S 133(6) WERE ISSUED AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE VERIFIED AMOUNTING TO RS 67,46,400/- ( RS 67,70,580- 24,180=67,46,400) IS, THEREFORE, TAKEN AS BOGUS PUR CHASE/ CREDITS AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. [ADDITION: 67,46,400/-] 3. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO THE UNSECURED LOANS, A O HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FRESH LOANS FROM TWO PAR TIES NAMELY, SUNITA VERMA OF RS.10,70,000/- AND MANISHA GUPTA OF RS.1 LAC, AGGREGATING TO RS.11,70,000/- AND ADDE D THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT NONE APPEARED IN RESPONSE T O SUMMONS U/S.131 AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO COULD NOT PRO DUCE I.T.AS. NO.3588/D/2015 & CO NO.188/DEL/2018 4 THESE CREDITORS AND THEREFORE GENUINENESS OF THE LO AN AND CREDITWORTHINESS CANNOT BE EXAMINED. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT, CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM ALL THE CREDITORS WERE SUB MITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH COMPLE TE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLARIFIED THAT ASSESSEE HAD RUNNING ACCOUNT WITH THESE PARTIES AND IN CASE OF THREE PARTIES ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN DETAIL EXPLANATION. THE RELEVANT SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) READS AS U NDER: IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AFORESAID ADDITION INCLUDES R S. 3,02,400/- OF GUR TIRATH SINGH; RS.2,01,600/- OF KAMAL SINGH; AND RS.2,01,320/- OF BALBIR SINGH. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PERUS AL OF THEIR LEDGER ACCOUNT (PAGES 23-25) CLEARLY SHOWS THE BALANCE OUT STANDING AS ON 31-03-2008 IN RESPECT OF GUR TIRATH SINGH AND KAMAL SINGH ARE THE SAME AS ON 31-03-2007 AND IN RESPECT OF BALBIR SING H THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING AS ON 31-03-2008 WAS OUT OF THE BALANCE PAYABLE AS ON 31-03-2007. IT IS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ANY ADDITION IN RE SPECT OF THE SAID THREE CREDITORS CANNOT BE MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION. I. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ONLY TWO NOTICES OF GUR TIR ATH SINGH AND GURDEV SINGH WERE RECEIVED BACK, AS HAS BEEN ADMITT ED VIDE PARA 3 (AO PAGE 2) IN THE TABLE. II. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED ON 16-12-2010 (PAGES 11-12) AND IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THERE IS NO ORDER SHEET ENTRY SHOWING THAT THE NOTI CES ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE RECEIVED BACK AND THE DATE O N WHICH THE NOTICES WERE PURPORTEDLY RECEIVED BACK IS NOT KNOWN . III. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AFTER 16-12-2010, WHEN TH E NOTICES WERE ISSUED; ONLY ONE HEARING TOOK PLACE ON 27-12-2010 ( PAGES 11-12) AND ON THAT DATE ANY QUESTION PARTICULARLY REGARDIN G CREDITORS WAS I.T.AS. NO.3588/D/2015 & CO NO.188/DEL/2018 5 NOT RAISED BY THE ID. ITO. IV. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ID. ITO NEITHER INFORMED THE ASSESS EE THAT ANY NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT SENT TO THE CREDITORS HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK; NOR DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE NEW ADDR ESS OR JUSTIFICATION FOR THE NON-DELIVERY OF NOTICES. V. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE ADDRESS OF GUR TIRATH SINGH AND GURDEV SINGH. REGARDING THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. ITO THAT NONE OF THE CREDITOR CONFIRMED THEIR BALANCE; IT IS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: I. THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED ON 16 -12-2010 (PAGES 11-12) DIRECTING THE SUNDRY CREDITORS TO SUB MIT THE REPLY BY 20-12-2010 AND THEREFORE, THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE I D. ITO TO THE CREDITORS FOR SUBMITTING THE REPLY, BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE REASONABLE, PARTICULARLY HAVIN G REGARD TO THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE CREDITORS WERE OUTSTATION, AN D 19-12-2010 BEING SUNDAY WAS HOLIDAY; THUS, THE CREDITORS COULD NOT SUBMIT THE REPLY TO THE LD. ITO. II. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 04-10- 2010 (PAGES 15-17) FILED CONFIRMATION OF M/S MKS AR OMATICS (PAGES 19), GIVING COMPLETE ADDRESS AND PAN, WHICH HAS THE HIGHEST AND LARGE BALANCE. III. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ID. ITO TRIED TO OBTA IN CONFIRMATIONS DIRECTLY FROM THE CREDITORS, BUT NON RECEIPT OF SUC H CONFIRMATIONS WAS NEVER INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE. IV. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF ACCOUNT AS AP PEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE DULY CONFIRMED BY THE CREDITO RS, NAMELY HARPRIT SINGH (PAGES 27). GURDEV SINGH (PAGES 29) AND PARMJEET SINGH (PAGES 3 1) ALONG WITH THEIR IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY ELECTION COMMISSION O F INDIA ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED AS I.T.AS. NO.3588/D/2015 & CO NO.188/DEL/2018 6 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, AS NON RECEIPT OF SUCH CONFIRM ATIONS WAS NEVER INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. LD. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE MATERIA L ON RECORD AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, NOTED T HAT IN CASE OF ONE OF THE MAJOR CREDITOR, IN M.K.S. AROMAT ICS HAVING CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.47,88,280/- WAS A REGULAR SUPP LIER AND IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S.133(6) THEY HAVE GIVE N THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DIRECTLY TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, HENCE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BOGUS PURCHASES. SIMIL ARLY, IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THREE PARTIES HE NOTED THAT THE OPE NING BALANCE ARE OUTSTANDING AND THERE IS NO TRANSACTION DURING THIS YEAR, AND THEREFORE, THESE THREE ACCOUNTS OF S UNDRY CREDITORS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BOGUS DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN CASE OF OTHER PARTIES ALSO HE H AS EXAMINED EACH AND EVERY BILL AND HAS GIVEN FOLLOWIN G FINDING OF FACT:- THE REASON GIVEN BY AO AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE A PPELLANT ARE CONSIDERED. THE RELEVANT LEDGER ACCOUNT AND FINANCI AL STATEMENTS ARE ALSO EXAMINED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE CREDITOR M.K .S. AROMATICS HAVING CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.47,88,280/- IS A REGULA R SUPPLIER WHERE NOTICE U/S 133(6) ISSUED BY AO WAS SERVED WHO HAS G IVEN THE CONFIRMATION LETTER ALSO. THUS, THIS AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS BOGUS PURCHASES. IN THE ACCOUNTS OF SH. TIRATH S INGH /(RS.3,02,400/-), KAMAL SINGH (RS.2,01,800/-) AND B ALBIR SINGH (RS.2,01,320/-), ONLY THE OPENING BALANCES ARE OUTS TANDING. THERE IS NO TRANSACTION DURING THIS YEAR. IN VIEW OF THIS , THESE THREE ACCOUNTS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS ALSO SHOULD NOT BE CON SIDERED AS BOGUS DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. REGARDIN G CREDIT AMOUNT IN THE NAME OF PARMJEET SINGH, GURUDEV SINGH AND I.T.AS. NO.3588/D/2015 & CO NO.188/DEL/2018 7 HARPREET SINGH, THE AO MENTIONED THAT, IN TWO CASES NOTICES WERE DELIVERED BUT NO REPLY FILED. ONLY IN CASE OF GURUD EV SINGH THE NOTICE WAS RETURNED. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THESE THRE E SUPPLIERS ARE BASED IN JALLANDHAR, PUNJAB AND HENCE NOTICES ISSUE D ON 16.12.2010 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR ASSESSMENT PASS ED ON 27.12,2010. THE AO PICKED UP THE ENQUIRY AT THE END OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR TIME BARING ASSESSMENT AND CA NNOT EXPECT THE APPELLANT TO FULFILL ALL THE QUERIES AT A TIME. THE AO ALSO NEVER CONFRONTED THE APPELLANT THAT CONFIRMATIONS FROM TH E THREE CREDITORS OF JALLANDHAR HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED. IT IS HELD IN THE CASE OF ELAND INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (2009) 26 DTR 113 (DEL.) THAT, IF SALES HAVE BEEN EFFECTED OUT OF PURCHASE MADE FROM THESE PARTIES, THEN, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PURCHASE WERE BOGU S. THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY CONCERTED EFFORT TO FIND OUT THE BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN SUMMERY MANNER WHERE JUS T BECAUSE SOME CONFIRMATIONS WERE NOT RECEIVED, ENTIRE CREDIT ENTRIES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS BOGUS PURCHASE/CREDITS. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ADDITION MADE IS DELETED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL I S ALLOWED. 6. SIMILARLY WITH REGARD TO UNSECURED LOAN, THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CONFIRMATION OF THESE PARTIES ALONG WITH COMPLETE DETAILS AND ADDRESSES WERE FILED DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH PAN, ETC. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUNITA VERMA WAS A MEMBER OF HUF AND WIFE OF KARTA HUF AND LOAN WAS GIVEN THROUGH ACCOUNT PAY EE THROUGH REGULAR BANKING CHANNEL CREDITED IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED T HAT ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE PERSON FROM WHOM SUCH LOAN WAS RECEIVED WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM T HE ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS EVE N NOT MENTION THE DATE ON WHICH PERPETUATED DIRECTIONS WE RE I.T.AS. NO.3588/D/2015 & CO NO.188/DEL/2018 8 ISSUED. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED SUMMONS ON 21. 12.2010 TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS ON 24.12.2012, THEREFORE, TIME ALLOWED WAS VERY LESS. BASED ON THESE FACTS AND MAT ERIAL ON RECORD, LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: 6.3 THE REASON GIVEN BY AO AND THE SUBMISSION OF T HE APPELLANT ARE CONSIDERED. THE BASIS OF ADDITIONS MADE BY AO I S THAT THE CREDITORS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SUMMONS AND THE A PPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PERSONS BEFORE HIM. HOWEVER, AS SUBM ITTED, THE SUMMONS WERE ISSUED ON 21.12.2010 ASKING THE CREDIT ORS TO PRODUCE BY 24.12.2010. THIS, SHORT SPAN OF TIME IS UNREASONABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE LEGAL. THE APPELLANT ALSO PROVIDED CONFIRMATION LETTERS, PAN AND INCOME TAX PARTICULARS OF THE CRED ITORS TO THE AO. MOREOVER, THE MAJOR CREDITOR SUNITA VERMA IS THE WI FE OF THE KARTA OF APPELLANT HUF. THUS, THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY F URTHER ENQUIRY TO ESTABLISH HIS FINDINGS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NO T GENUINE AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS ARE DOUBTFUL. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ADDITION MADE IS DELETED. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON P ERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE RS, WE FIND THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE PURCHASE S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM VARIOUS PARTIES APPEARING AS SUND RY CREDITORS AS BOGUS PURCHASES. IT IS A MATTER OF FAC T THAT IN CASE OF ONE OF THE CREDITOR, NAMELY, M.K.S, AROMATI CS WHICH WAS HAVING CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.47,88,000/- WAS A R EGULAR SUPPLIER AND HAS DIRECTLY CONFIRMED TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S.133(6). BESIDES THAT, TH REE PARTIES, NAMELY, TIRATH SINGH (RS.3,02,400/-); KAMAL SINGH I.T.AS. NO.3588/D/2015 & CO NO.188/DEL/2018 9 (RS.2,01,600/-); AND BALBIR SINGH (RS.2,01,320/-) W ERE OPENING BALANCES AND NO TRANSACTION WAS CARRIED OUT DURING THIS YEAR, THEREFORE, THESE SUNDRY CREDITORS CANNOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS PURCHASES FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR . FURTHER, IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT NOTICES U/S. 1 33(6) WERE ISSUED ON 16.12.2010 TO SUBMIT THEIR REPLY ON 20.12 .2010 AND SINCE MORE OF THE CREDITORS WERE OUT STATION TH EREFORE, THEY COULD NOT RESPOND. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER H AS ALSO NOT CONFRONTED THE FACT THAT THE THREE CREDITORS HAVE N OT FILED THEIR CONFIRMATION INDEPENDENTLY DESPITE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CONFIRMATION COPY OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASO N TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND SAM E IS CONFIRMED. 8. WITH REGARD TO UNSECURED LOAN ALSO, WE FIND THAT THESE LOANS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQ UE AND ALSO THEIR CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE FILED ALONG WI TH PAN AND INCOME DETAILS. ONE OF THE MAJOR CREDITOR WHO HAS GI VEN SUM OF RS.10,70,000/-, WAS WIFE OF THE KARTA OF THE HUF AND ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED BY ALL THE DOCUMENTS, PROVING THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS A ND GENUINENESS. NO OTHER MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT ALL THESE DOC UMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUI NENESS OF THE LOAN. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS AFFIRMED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. I.T.AS. NO.3588/D/2015 & CO NO.188/DEL/2018 10 10. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED T HAT GROUNDS RAISED IN CROSS OBJECTION ARE PURELY LEGAL GROUND AND SAME CAN BE TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS BEING NOT PR ESSED. ACCORDINGLY, CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUC TUOUS. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WEL L AS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- [O.P. KANT] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2018