The ITO, Ward-2(2), Surat V. Shri Nandkishor Hulaschand Jalan, Surat

ITA 374/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6160 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALBINUS TIRKEY
• Assessee Lawyers: KK SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69C; 40A(3); 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP AT SURAT BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI NANDKISHOR HULASCHAND JALAN, C - 101 - 102, TIRUPATI MARKET, RING ROAD, SURAT, PAN: AAXPJ5348M (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO, WARD - 2(2), SURAT (RESPONDENT) THE ITO, W ARD - 2(2), SURAT (APPELLANT) VS SHRI NANDKISHOR HULASCHAND JALAN, C - 101 - 102, TIRUPATI MARKET, RING ROAD, SURAT, PAN: AAXPJ5348M (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : MR. ALBINUS TIRKEY , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: MR. K.K. SHAH , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 09 - 03 - 2 017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 - 04 - 2 017 I T A NO . 240 / A HD/20 13 A SSESSMEN T YEAR 200 9 - 10 ITA NO. 374 /AHD/20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 I.T.A NO. 240 & 374 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SHRI NANDKISHOR HULASCHAND JALAN VS. ITO 2 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS CROSS APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AND REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 , AR ISE FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - II, SURAT DATED 27 - 11 - 2012 IN APPEAL NO. CAS - II/227/11 - 12 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1) THE LEARNED CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 67,83,020/ - IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITORS FOR PURCHASE OF GOODS. 2) THE LEARNED CIT (A) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 59,65,729/ - AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (3) OF THE ACT THOUGH THERE WAS REJECTION OF ACCOUNTS. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ASSUMED REASONABLE PROFIT ON TURNOVER INSTEAD OF CONFIRMING SE PARATE ADDITION ON VARIOUS COUNTS. 3) THE LEARNED CIT (A) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 15,33,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF REMITTANCE OUT OF INCOME EARNED OUT OF INDIA. 3. IN THIS CASE, RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 3 , 61 , 392/ - WAS FILED ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER SCRUTINY BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE ELABORATED UNDER THE DIFFERENT GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS BELOW. GROUND 1 OF THE ASSESS AND GROUND 1 OF THE R EVENUE 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CONFIRMATION RELATED TO THE I.T.A NO. 240 & 374 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SHRI NANDKISHOR HULASCHAND JALAN VS. ITO 3 CREDITORS, COMPLETE DETAILS OF PURCHASE INCLUDING PURCHASE LEDGER S AND EVIDENCE S FOR INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL. THEREAFTE R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED LETTER U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE CREDITORS TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTIONS . AS A RESULT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT EXISTED AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THEREAFTER , A SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSE SSEE POINTING OUT THAT THE PARTIES . I)SHRI JITENDRA JAIN II) MONA FABRICS III) RADHA SYNTHETICS IV) AND SHANTI CREATION WERE NOT RESIDING AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN ON THE CONFIRMATION PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. AND , THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED T HE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WITH THE ABOVE PARTIES BY PRODUCING NECESSARY PROOF/SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS LIKE BILLS/ CHALLAN/TRANSPORTATION PROOF/COPY OF CASH BOOK/COPY OF BANK STATEMENT ETC. THE ASSESS EE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRA NASCTIONS AND EVEN THE PRIMARY INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED THIS ENTIRE CREDIT OF RS. 2,71,32,085/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT ALL THESE CREDITORS WERE MERELY BOOK ENT RY AND THEY HAVE ALREADY PAID IN CASH. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE GROU ND RAISED BY APPELLANT WHICH IS APPARENTLY WRONG AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT CLEARLY SAY THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS TO BE FRAMED OR COMPLETED BEFORE THE STATUTORY DATE WHICH IS 31.12.2011 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT. THIS SECTION NOWHERE SAYS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS TO BE SERVED ON OR BEFORE 31.12.2011. IF THE AO HAS EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT ASSESSMENT I.T.A NO. 240 & 374 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SHRI NANDKISHOR HULASCHAND JALAN VS. ITO 4 ORDER WAS PASSED AND DISPATCHED ON OR BEFORE 31.12.2011, IT IS A PERFECTLY LEGAL ORDER. THE DATE OF SERVICE OF TH E ORDER DOES NOT MATTER SO FAR AS THE LEGALITY OF THE ORDER IS CONCERNED. IN VIEW OF THIS LEGAL POSITION, GROUND TAKEN BY APPELLANT DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 4. NEXT GROUND TAKEN BY APPELLANT IS GENERAL IN NATURE EN D RELATES TO ALL THE SUBSEQUENT GROUNDS THEREFORE NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE SEPARATELY. 2. THE LEARNED A.O. GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT CONFRONTING EVIDENCES COLLECTED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE, SUCH ADDITIONS ARE ALSO BAD - IN - LAW. 5. NEXT GROUND TAKEN BY APPELLANT IS AS UNDER. 3. THE LEARNED A.O. GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2,71,32,08S/ - ON ACCOUNT OF OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF THE CREDITORS AS PER PARA 7.6 OF THE ORDER . 5.1 DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO INQUIRED ABOUT T HE CREDITORS ASKING FROM ASSESSEE THE DETAILS SUCH AS LIST OF CREDITORS, THEIR CONFORMATIONS, LEDGER ACCOUNTS ETC. AFTER RECEIVING THE INFORMATION, AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 133 (6) OF THE ACT AND ALSO DEPUTED INSPECTOR TO MAKE FIELD INQUIRY ABOUT THE CREDITO RS. AS A RESULT OF INQUIRY, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE THAT THE SAID CREDITORS WERE NOT EXISTED AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. AO PROPOSED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS. 2,71,32,085/ - , TOTAL OF THE AMOUNT SHOWN AGAINST THE CREDITORS IN THE BALANCE SHEET. ASSESSEE DID NOT GIV E ANY REPLY NOR WAS ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED TO CLAIM THE GENUINENESS OF CREDITORS. CONSEQUENTLY, IN ABSENCE OF ANY REPLY ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE, AO TREATED THE ENTIRE CREDITORS OF RS. 2,71,32,085/ - AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO HIS INCOME. 5.2 DU RING THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT THAT THE AO ERRED IN NOT CONFRONTING EVIDENCES COLLECTED BEHIND THE BACK OF APPELLANT THEREFORE SUCH ADDITIONS ARE BAD IN LAW. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RECOVERY OF CERTAIN DEBTORS WAS IN PR OBLEM AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST SUCH DEBTORS THEREFORE HE WAS UNABLE TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO THE CREDITORS AND IN SUCH PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO CONTACT THE CREDITORS FOR CONFIRMATIONS WHEN THEIR AMOUNTS ITSELF WERE NOT P AID. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT CREDITORS ARE NORMALLY OLD ONES BUT THE PAYMENTS OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.3.2009 ARE MAINLY RELATED TO PURCHASES OF THE CURRENT YEAR. FURTHER, THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SALES WHICH IS NOT I.T.A NO. 240 & 374 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SHRI NANDKISHOR HULASCHAND JALAN VS. ITO 5 POSSIBLE WITHOUT PURCHASES THEREFORE MA KING ADDITION OF PURCHASES IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED. IT V/AS ALSO PLEADED THAT IN CASE THE PURCHASES/CREDITORS ARE NOT VERIFIABLE, AO OUGHT TO HAVE ESTIMATED SOME REASONABLE MARGIN OF PROFIT, AS HELD BY HON'BLE ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE FOLLOWING CASES. (A) BHOLANATHPOLYFDB (P) LTD (ITA NO. 137 /AHCI. /2U09) (B) AVISHKAR PROCESSING MILLS (P) LTD (ITA NO.3589 TO 359L/F - HD. \ /2008) (C) SUN STEEL LTD (2005) 92 IT] (AHD.) 1126. 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON THE ISSUE AND FOUND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS SUPPORTED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO EXPLAIN THE CREDITORS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS SIMPLY GIVEN THE GENERAL REPLY AND ARGUMENTS THAT RECOVERY FROM DEBTORS COULD NOT BE MADE THEREFORE PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE TO CREDITORS THEREFORE NO CONFIRMATIONS COULD BE OBTAINED. BUT, HE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THAT WHY THE CREDITORS WERE FOUND NON EXISTENCE DURING FIELD INQUIRY MADE BY INSPECTOR OR IN REPLY TO THE NOTICES SENT U /S. 133 (6) OF THE ACT. AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, DESPITE OF GIVING MANY OPPORTUNITIES BY AO, ASSESSEE FAILED TO REPLY ANY OF THEM. IF THE CREDITORS ARE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENJOYING THEIR FUNDS FOR HIS OWN BUSINESS PU RPOSES, ONUS IS ON HIM TO ESTABLISH THEIR GENUINENESS. BUT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS. IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID FACTS, THE GENUINENESS OF CREDITORS IS NOT PROVED BEYOND DOUBT. IN SUCH SITUATION, THE ALTERNATE PLEA TAKEN BY APPELLANT TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT ON SUCH UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF DECISIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL ITAT. THE DECISIONS MENTIONED BY APPELLANT IN HIS SUBMISSIONS ARE BASED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. CD . VS ACIT, REPORTED IN 58 ITAT 528 (AND.) WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS REGARDING SOURCE OF PURCHASES THEREFORE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C WERE APPLIED IN HIS CASE. THE DISALLOWANCE OF WHOLE OF THE PURCHASES WAS CONSIDERED EXCESSI VE THEREFORE 25% OF THE ALLEGED DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT ALSO, PURCHASES OF RS. 2,71,32,085/ - ARE NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THEREFORE 25% OF THE SAID AMOUNT WHICH COMES TO 67,83,020/ - , CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE. IN V IEW OF THIS, I HOLD THAT, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL ITAT, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 67,83,020/ - IS JUSTIFIED IN PLACE OF RS. 2,71,32,085/ - AS DISALLOWED BY AO. I, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.67,83,020/ - . APPELLANT GETS PART RELIEF. I.T.A NO. 240 & 374 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SHRI NANDKISHOR HULASCHAND JALAN VS. ITO 6 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FURNISHED BY T HE LD. COUNSEL CONTAINING DETAIL OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ETC. WE HAVE NOTICED FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE PURCHASE PARTIES WERE NOT FOUND TO BE EXI S TED AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. IN SPITE OF GIVING OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AS A RESULT WHOLE OF THE PURCHASES WERE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . T HE LD. CIT(A) HAD RESTRICT ED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 25% OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS CO. VS. ACIT 58 ITAT 528(AH D). WE NOTICED THAT T HE DISALLOWANCE OF WHOLE OF THE PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS EXCESSIVE THEREFORE 25% OF THE ALLEGED DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) APPEARED TO BE REASONABLE AFTER PLACING RELIANCE ON THE PRONOUNC EMENT OF VIJAY PROTEINS CO. VS. ACIT 58 ITAT 528(AHD). THEREFORE, LOOKING TO THE ABOVE FACTS AND DETAILED FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE DISINCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 2 6 . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT ASESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED REQUIRED DETAIL AS CALLED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MADE INQUIRY FROM IDBI BANK WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING ONE BANK ACCOUNT. ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS OBTAINED PHOTOCOP IES OF CHEQUES FROM THE BANK AND FOUND I.T.A NO. 240 & 374 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SHRI NANDKISHOR HULASCHAND JALAN VS. ITO 7 THAT CHEQUES WERE NOT A/C PAYEE AND ENDORSED IN FAVOUR OF T HIRD PART IES OTHER THAN THE NAMES TO WHOM THESE WERE ISSUED . THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT PAYMENT MADE THROUGH THESE CHEQUES WERE ABOVE RS. 20, 000/ - TOWARDS PURCHASE MADE BY VIOLATING PROVISION OF SECTION 40 A(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME ,T HEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIO N OF RS. 59 , 65 ,7 29/ - U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUST AINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 6.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED TH E FACTS ON THE ISSUE AND LEGAL PROVISIONS ALSO. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION TO JUSTIFY THE PAYMENTS AGAINST PURCHASES MADE IN EXCESS OF RS. 20,000/ - EACH, OTHER THAN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES OR DRAFTS. THE REASON OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY IS NOT FURTHER EXPLAINED WITH DETAILS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOR SUPPORTED WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THUS, THE EXCEPTIONS GIVEN AS.PER PROVISO OF THE SECTION 40A (3) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT. FURTHER, THE ARGUMENT OF APPELLA NT THAT WHERE PROFIT IS ESTIMATED BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (3) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IS ALSO MISPLACED. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED NOR THE PROFIT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED, RATHER, PURCHASES HAVE BEEN FOUND UNEXPLAINED AND A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THESE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED FOR THE REASON THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT WAS GIVING A DISTORTED PICTURE OF PROFIT MARGINS. IT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE WHOLE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN REJECTED AND OVERALL PROFIT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED. ONE MORE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN TAKEN BY APPELLANT 'HAT THE PURCHASES INVOLVED FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A (3) ARE THE SAME WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY AO AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS THEREFORE FOR T HE SAME AMOUNT ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE TWICE. IN MY OPINION, THIS ARGUMENT OF APPELLANT IS ALSO MISPLACED. THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A (3) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF THOSE TRANSACTIONS WHERE PAYMENTS HAVE ACTUAL Y BEEN MADE WHEREAS UNEXPLAINED C REDITORS HAVE BEEN TREATED AGAINST THOSE PURCHASES WHERE PAYMENTS HAVE I.T.A NO. 240 & 374 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SHRI NANDKISHOR HULASCHAND JALAN VS. ITO 8 NOT BEEN MADE BY APPELLANT. THUS, BOTH TYPE OF TRANSACTIONS ARE DISTINCTIVELY SEPARATE. IT IS THEREFORE HELD THAT APPELLANT HAS MADE THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS BY CONTRAVENING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 40A (3) AND THE AO HAS BEEN JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES OF RS. 59,65,729/ - . IN SUCH SITUATION, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ' 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBTAINED PHOTOCOPIES OF CHEQUES FROM THE BANK AND DETECTED NATURE OF PAYMENT MADE THROUGH THESE CHEQUES WERE ABOVE RS.20,000/ - TOWARDS PURCHASE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) O F THE ACT.. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION TO JUSTIFY THE PAYMENTS AGAINST PURCHASES MADE IN EXCESS OF RS. 20,000/ - EACH, OTHER THAN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES OR DRAFTS AND FAILED TO FURNISH ANY SUPPOR T ING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE DETAILED FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A). GROUND NO. 3 8 . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSES SEE INTRODUCED FRESH CAPITAL OF RS. 15 , 33 , 000/ - DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL. AL THESE PAYMENT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE RECEIVED IN CASH . THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS RECEIVED REM ITTANCE OF THE SALARY FROM DUBAI AND COPY OF PASSPORT , PAY I N SLIP CERTIFICATE PRODUCED IN THIS CONNECTION WAS NOT FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. I.T.A NO. 240 & 374 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SHRI NANDKISHOR HULASCHAND JALAN VS. ITO 9 15 , 33 , 000/ - WAS HE LD AS UNEXPLAINED SOURCE AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER : - 7.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE AND SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT. THE SOURCE OF CAPITAL EXPLAINED BY APPELLANT ARE THE CASH RECEIVED FROM THE COMPANIES OF DUBAI. THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THOSE COMPANIES RAISED D OUBTS AS NOTHING IS MENTIONED ABOUT DU TIES PERFORMED OR SERVICES RENDERED BY APPELLANT AGAINST WHICH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO HIM. FURTHER, WHO HAS SIGNED T HE SALARY CERTIFICATES IS ALSO NOT CLEAR AS ONLY SIGNATURES ARE PUT ON THE CERTIFICATES BUT NO NAMES OR DESIGNATION OF ISSUING AUTHORITY HAS BEEN MENTIONED. MOREOVER, ALL THESE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF CASH WITHOUT INVOLVING ANY BANKING CHANNEL. IN SUCH SITUATION, THE SOURCE OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED I S NOT SATISFACTORY EXPLAINED BY APPELLANT THEREFORE IT IS HELD THAT THE ADDITION MADE B Y AO IS JUSTIFIED. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS . WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FURNISHED BY THE LD. COUNSEL CONTAINING DETAIL OF JUDICIAL P RONOUNCEMENTS AND SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ETC. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED FRESH CAPITAL DURING THE YEAR A ND HAS NOT FURNISHED CONVINCING SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL. WE FURTHER FIND THA T T HE SOURCE OF CAPITAL EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF CASH RECEIVED FROM D UBAI APPEARED TO BE INCONCLUSIVE WITHOUT INVOLVING ANY BANKING CHANNEL. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A), CONSEQUENTLY WE COULD NOT FIND ANY COGENT SUP PORTING EVIDENCES TO INTRUDE IN THE DECISION OF LD.CIT(A). ITA NO. 374/AHD/2013 (REVENUE S APPEAL) I.T.A NO. 240 & 374 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SHRI NANDKISHOR HULASCHAND JALAN VS. ITO 10 10 . THE REV ENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: - [1] ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTI NG THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE AUTHENTICITY OF ALL THE CREDITORS SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, LEDGER ACCOUNTS OR PRIMARY RECORDS. 11. BECAUSE OF INTERCONNECTED ISSUE T HIS GROUND O F THE REVENUE IS ADJUDICATED WITH GROUND 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE AS SUPRA IN THIS ORDER. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 20 - 04 - 201 7 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 20 /04 /2017 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,