Shri Pawan Kumar Garg, Prop. M/sP.K.Enterprises, Hisar V. ITO, Hisar

ITA 373/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5131 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence
• Section: 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 373/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SH. PAWAN KUMAR GARG PROP. VS. ITO, WARD-3, M/S P.K. ENTERPRISES HISAR C/O SH. BHARAT VIKRANT, ADVOCATE, 7, BASEMENT, PARIJAT COMPLEX, HISAR-125001 HARYANA (PAN: AJAPG1382Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. GAUTAM JAIN, ADVOCATE & SH. PIYUSH KUMAR KAMAL, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR. ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 14.10.2016 OF THE LD. CIT(A), HISAR PERTAINING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,70,000/- REPRESENTING ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM SHRI ISHWAR SINGH AND HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT 1.1 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT DEPOSITS IN THE 2 BANK ACCOUNT AGAINST SALE OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTY COU LD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT . 1.2 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT, IN ABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF SOURCE CANNOT BE A BASIS TO CONFIRM ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT 1.3 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT APPELLANT H AS LED COMPLETE EVIDENCE TO-DEMONSTRATE AND DISCHARGE THE BURDEN THAT ADVANCE WAS DULY RECEIVED FROM SH. ISWA R SINGH AND AS SUCH ADDITION IS BASED ON FUNDAMENTAL MISCONCEPTION OF FACTS AND PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THEREFORE, UNTENABLE. 1.4 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS OVERLOOKED RELEVANT EVIDENCE PLACED O N RECORD AND, DRAWN FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE INFERENCES BASED ON IRRELEVANT AND EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATION AND THUS, ADDITION SUSTAIN ED IS WHOLLY UNWARRANTED AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 1.5 THAT VARIOUS ADVERSE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE CONTRARY TO RECORD AND LAW AND THUS UNSUSTAINABLE. 3 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HISAR HAS FURTHER ERRED ACT IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITI ON OF RS. 4,00,000/- REPRESENTING LOAN RECEIVED FROM WIF E OF THE APPELLANT AND HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDI T U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 2.1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH AT DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT OF WIFE OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE REMI TTANCE OF THE MONEY TO THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE A GROUND TO BR ING TO TAX THE CREDIT AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 2.2 THAT FINDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR IS FACTUALLY INCOR RECT, LEGALLY MISCONCEIVED AND UNTENABLE. 2.3 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT UNSECURED L OANS AGGREGATING TO RS. 4,00,000/- HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES FROM WIFE OF THE APPELLANT WHO HAD DU LY CONFIRMED THAT LOANS HAD BEEN ADVANCED TO THE APPEL LANT AND AS SUCH, ADDITION SO SUSTAINED IS INVALID AND U NTENABLE. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT, ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED AND APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT BE ALLOWED. 4 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.9.2012 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 8 ,03,170/-. THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING BUSINESS OF SCRAP. DURING ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOW N CREDIT LIABILITY IN THE NAME OF SURYA ROSHNI LIMITED, BAHADURGARH. T O CONFIRM THE SAME, THE AO CALLED INFORMATION U/S. 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT) AND FOUND N IL CREDIT BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF M/S SURYA ROSHNI LI MITED. ON RECONCILIATION, AO FOUND DIFFERENCE OF RS. 10,70,00 0/- IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT VIZ A VIZ THE CREDITOR. THE AO SUMMON ED SHRI ISHWAR SINGH, CREDITOR AND RECORDED HIS STATEMENT ON 30.12 .2014. FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED, AO INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT ADDUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FROM WHICH IT CAN BE ASCER TAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE ANY TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF SAL E/PURCHASE OF PROPERTY; THE STORY PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON LY FABRICATED ONE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE NEVER DISCLOSED THAT HE HAS SO LD ANY PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO NOT DI SCLOSED THAT HE WAS IN POSSESSION OF ANY ANCESTRAL PROPERTY WHICH W AS GIVEN TO SHRI ISHWAR SINGH FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 10,70,000/- AND ALSO THE PURCHASER FAILED TO GIVE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE R EGARDING THE TRANSACTION FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THE SHAPE O F AGREEMENT OR SALE DEED ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROD UCE ANY EVIDENCE/PROOF OF POSSESSION IN RESPECT OF PROP ERTY IN QUESTION WHICH HE CLAIMED HE HAD SOLD TO SH. 5 ISHWAR SINGH; THE ASSESSEE PROPOUNDED THIS STORY ON LY WHEN HE DID NOT FIND ANY ESCAPE ROUTE TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRY OF R S. 10,70,000/- IN THE ACCOUNT OF M/S SURYA ROSHINI LTD. BAHADURGARH; THAT NO ENTRY OF RS. 10,70,000/- ON 21.11.2011 OR NEARBY DATE NEITHE R IN THE LEDGER CAPITAL ACCOUNT NOR IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSE SSEE HAD BEEN FOUND CREDITED. HE OBSERVED THAT THE PLEA OF THE AS SESSEE IS JUST AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND PROVED FALSE. THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE FACTS HELD THAT APPELLANT HAD INTRODUCED CAPITAL OF RS.1O ,70,000/- OUT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. AO MADE ADDITION O F RS. 10,70,000/- U/S. 68 OF THE IT ACT. 2.1 AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 4,00,000/- FROM SMT. URMILA DEVI, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNSE CURED LOAN AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED RS. 4,00,000/- O N 9.2.2012 FROM SMT. URMILA DEVI AS UNSECURED LOAN. THE ASSESSEE H AS PROOF, PRODUCED COPY OF ACCOUNT, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT AND COPY OF ITR BEFORE AO. ON EXAMINATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNT, AO F OUND THAT CASH OF RS. 4 LACS HAD BEEN DEPOSITED ON 9.2.2012 AND CH EQUE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME DATE. AO REQUIRED THE ASSE SSEE PRODUCE THE CREDITOR TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE CREDITOR STATING THAT SHE WAS OUT OF ST ATION AND ALSO DID NOT MAKE REQUEST TO PRODUCE CREDITOR ON ANY OTHER DATE. AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED PROVE THE CREDITWORTHI NESS OF THE CREDITOR, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION E NTRY FROM THE CREDITOR AND INTENTIONALLY DEPOSITED MONEY IN THE N AME OF SMT. 6 URMILA DEVEI. AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ADDED THE SAME U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2014 AND COMP LETED THE ASSESSMENT AT RS. 38,94,750/- U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T . ACT, 1961. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO DATED 30.12.2014, ASSES SEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.10.2016 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND CONFIR MED THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.10.2016, ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE HAS STATED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,70 ,000/- REPRESENTING ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM SHRI ISHWAR SING H AND HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND HE FA ILED TO APPRECIATE THAT DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AGAINST SALE OF A NCESTRAL PROPERTY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT IT WAS ALSO NOT APPRECIATED THA T, INABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF SOURCE CANNOT BE A BA SIS TO CONFIRM ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND HE HAS ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ASSESSEE HAS LED COMPLETE EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE A ND DISCHARGE THE BURDEN THAT ADVANCE WAS DULY RECEIVED FROM SH. ISWAR SINGH AND AS SUCH ADDITION IS BASED ON FUNDAMENTAL MISCONCEPT ION OF FACTS AND 7 PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THEREFORE, UNTENABLE. WITH RE GARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 4,00,000/- IS CONCERNED, HE STATED THAT THE SAI D AMOUNT REPRESENTING LOAN RECEIVED FROM WIFE OF THE ASSESSE E AND IT WAS NOT APPRECIATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT OF WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE REMITTANCE OF THE MONEY TO T HE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE A GROUND TO BRING TO TAX THE CREDIT AS IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE SAID UNSECURED LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS. 4 LACS HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY ACCO UNT PAYEE CHEQUES FROM WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD DULY CON FIRMED THAT LOANS HAD BEEN ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH , ADDITION SO SUSTAINED IS INVALID AND UNTENABLE. IN SUPPORT OF T HIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON VARIOUS CASE LAWS, AS MENTIONED IN THE SYNOPSIS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, E SPECIALLY THE CONTENTION RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THAT LD. CI T(A) HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES I N DISPUTE VIDE PARA NO. 3.3 & 5.1 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE, I AM REPRODUCING THE SAID RELEVANT FI NDING AS UNDER:- 3.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE FACT THAT HE HAD 8 ANCESTRAL PROPERTY SITUATED AT VILLAGE SARSANA, DISTT. HISAR ON 21.11.2011. THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,70,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI ISHWAR SINGH IN CASH AS ADVANCE FOR SALE OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTY. HERE THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT WAS NOT GRANTED OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI ISHWAR SINGH CANNOT BE AGREED TO AS SHRI ISHWAR SINGH WAS THE WITNESS OF THE APPELLANT ITSELF. APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT SHRI ISHWAR SINGH HAD GIVEN SAID ADVANCE OF RS. 10,70,000/- TO THE APPELLANT OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF JCB MACHINE AND AS ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTY FOR WHICH POSSESSION WAS WITH SHRI ISHWAR SINGH. APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO FORM AN AGREEMENT IN 'WRITING, VERBAL AGREEMENT IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT. HOWEVER, IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE CREDITOR HAS, NOT F ILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME, DID NOT HAVE PAN, DID NOT REMEMBER DETAILS OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT, DID NOT REMEMBER DATE OF TRANSACTION OF PROPERTY. THE CREDITORS ALSO DID NOT PRODUCE COPY OF AGREEMENT, SALE PURCHASE DEED OF THE PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PROPERTY IN 9 QUESTION. EVEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF JCB MACHINE WAS MADE IN CASH. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT. THE SA ID ENTRY OF RS. 10,70,000/- WAS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF M/S SURYA ROSHNI LIMITED BAHADURGARH. THUS IT IS FOUND THAT THE ENTRY OF CASH CREDIT FOUN D IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT, THE IDENTITY WAS OF A DIFFERENT PERSON AND NOT M/S SURYA ROSHNI, THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR COULD NOT BE PROVE D IN AS MUCH AS NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION ALSO COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TREATING THE SAID CREDIT OF RS. 10,70,000/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES U/S. 68 IS THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5.1 HAVING EXAMINED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, IT IS FOUND THAT THE FACT REMAINS THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED ON THE SAME DATE ON WHICH CHEQUE WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ON 9.12.2012. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONUS IS ON THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE 10 CREDITOR. AO HAS RECORDED THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR WAS GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO AVA IL OF SUCH OPPORTUNITY. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OR CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AS WELL. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT, THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR ON THE SAME DATE ON WHICH CHEQUE WAS ISSUED AND ALSO THE FACT THAT INCOME DECLARED BY THE CREDITOR IS ONLY RS. 64,007/-, IT IS HELD THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR IS NOT ESTABLISHED . THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADDING RS. 4,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM SMT. URMILA DEVI AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 IS THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6.1 AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 10,70,000/- IS CONCERNED, I FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD ANCESTRAL PROPERTY SITUATED AT VILLAGE SARSANA, DISTT. HISAR ON 21.11.2011 AND AMOUNT OF RS. 10,70,000/- W AS RECEIVED FROM SHRI ISHWAR SINGH IN CASH AS ADVANCE FOR SALE OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTY. ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT SHRI ISHWAR SIN GH HAD GIVEN SAID ADVANCE OF RS. 10,70,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF JCB MACHINE AND AS ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF 11 ANCESTRAL PROPERTY FOR WHICH POSSESSION WAS WITH SH RI ISHWAR SINGH. ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO FORM AN AGREEMENT IN WRITING, VERBAL AGREEMENT IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT. HOWEVER, IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE CREDITOR H AS, NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME, DID NOT HAVE PAN, DID NOT REMEMBE R DETAILS OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT, DID NOT REMEMBER DATE OF TRANSACTION OF PROPERTY. THE CREDITORS ALSO DID NOT PRODUCE COPY OF AGREEMENT, S ALE PURCHASE DEED OF THE PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REL ATING TO PROPERTY IN QUESTION. EVEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF JCB MAC HINE WAS MADE IN CASH. EVEN THE SAID PROPERTY WAS NOT REFLECTED IN T HE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID ENTRY OF RS. 10,70,000/- WAS FOU ND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF M/S SURYA ROSHNI LIMITED BAHADURGARH. THUS IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ENTRY OF CASH CREDIT FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE IDENTITY WAS OF A DIFFERENT PERSON AND NOT M/S SURY A ROSHNI, THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR COULD NOT BE PROVE D IN AS MUCH AS NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION ALSO COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY ANY DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TREATING THE SAID CREDIT OF RS. 10,70,000/- AS INCOME FROM U NDISCLOSED SOURCES U/S. 68 WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CI T(A), WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, I UPHO LD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND DISMISS THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12 6.2 WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 4,00,000/- IS C ONCERNED, I FIND THAT FACT REMAINS THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED ON THE SA ME DATE ON WHICH CHEQUE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 9.12.2012. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. AO HAS RECORDED THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHI NESS OF THE CREDITOR WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO AVAIL OF SUCH OPPORTUNITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OR CRE DITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AS WELL. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT, THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR ON THE SAME DATE ON WHICH CHEQUE WAS ISSUED AND ALSO THE F ACT THAT INCOME DECLARED BY THE CREDITOR IS ONLY RS. 64,007/-, IT W AS HELD THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR IS NOT ESTABLISHED . THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADDING RS. 4,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM SMT. URM ILA DEVI AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRM ED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, I UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND DISMISS THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E. 6.3 AS REGARDS THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. COUNS EL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SYNOPSIS, I AM OF THE CONS IDERED VIEW THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DISTINGUISHED TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE 13 LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THE SAID DECISI ONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 09-08-2017. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :09-08-2017 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.