SHRI LATE ASSUDOMAL G. BHAGCHANDANI, ULHASNAGAR V. THE ITO WD 4(1), KALYAN

ITA 3769/MUM/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8253 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2006
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Proportionate interest; Reasonable cause; Non compliance; Assessment record
• Section: 144; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH D BENCH BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI P.M.JAGTAP (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.3769/MUM/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 LATE SHRI ASSUDOMAL G BHAGCHANDANI, L/H- SH LALIT A BHAGCHANDANI, SHOP NO.11, SACHDEV COMPLEX, ULASNAGAR-1 PA NO.AHOFB 7362 A ITO WARD 4(1), KALYAN (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJIV KUMAR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A.B.KOLI DATE OF HEARING: 7.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16. 11.2012 ORDER PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2001-02 AGAINST ORDER DATED 17.3.2006 OF LD CIT(A)-II, THANE ON FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN CONFIRMING AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 50,000/- TOWARDS EXPENSES. 2. THE LD. CIT-APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 11,45,795/- U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNCONFIRMED NEW LOANS TAKEN DURING THE Y EAR IN SPITE OF THE APPELLANT FURNISHING OTHER DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING PAYMENT OF LOANS BY THE SAID PARTIES. 3. THE LD. CIT-APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS 2,00,000/- U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN TAKEN IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND TREAT ING THE SAME AS DEEMED INCOME OF THE YEAR. 4. THE LD. CIT-APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOW ANCE OF RS 1,99,599/- BEING INTEREST ON LOANS CONFIRMED U/S 68. 5. THE LD. CIT-APPEALS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC. BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER AS THESE DOCUMENTS WERE DESTROYED IN A FIRE THAT HAD BROKEN OUT IN HIS OFFICE PREMISES. THE AO ERRED IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 14 4 FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF NOTICES U/S 142 AND 143. ITA NO.3769/MUM/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 2 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APPEAL AR E THAT THE AO MADE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.144 OF THE ACT ON 26.2.2004 AS THE ASSESSEE NEITHER FURNISHED DETAILS CALLED FOR IN CONNECTION WITH THE RETURN FI LED NOR ATTENDED THE HEARING. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.3,65,771. AO MADE THE ASSESSMENT AT RS.36,74,958 BY MAKING, INTER ALIA, FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: A) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS.4,58,875, AS ASSE SSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR BILLS/VOUCHERS TO PROVE THE EXP ENSES CLAIMED AT RS.13,56,730 . AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT ALLO WED EXPENSES @ 1.83% OF SALES BY FOLLOWING EARLIER YEAR WHICH CAME TO RS.8,97,855. HENCE, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,58,875 WAS MADE. B) BY MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.26,57,469 IN RESPEC T OF UNSECURED LOANS, DETAILS GIVEN AT PAGE 5 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THE ASSESSEE, IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN, HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY C ONFIRMATION OR ANY DETAIL TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF CASH CREDITS. C) IN VIEW OF DISALLOWANCE OF LOAN, AO ALSO DISALLOWED INTEREST OF RS.1,92,843 ON SAID LOANS WHICH WERE NOT ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD CI T(A) II) LD CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 25.4.2005 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BEING I.T.A. NO.4862/M/2005. THE TRIBUNAL BY ITS ORDER DATED 26 .8.2005 SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ACCORDINGLY, LD CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL ON 17.3.2006. LD CIT (A) WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS HELD AS UNDER: A) IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS.4,5 8,875/- MADE BY THE AO, LD CIT(A) VIDE PARA 3.3 HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOW ANCE TO RS.50,000/-. B) IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CRED IT U/S.68 OF THE ACT OF RS.26,57,469/-, LD CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED PAGE 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT GIVING DETAILS OF PERSONS AND LOAN AMOUNT TAKEN FRO M THEM AS UNDER: ITA NO.3769/MUM/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 3 SR. NO. NAME OF THE PERSONS LOAN AMOUNT (RS.) 1. DEEPAK MOTWANI 1,00,000 2. GIRDHAR T MARY 40,000 3. GURALDAS G MOTWANI 2,00,000 4. JAYWANTI KUKREJA 25,000 5. KALARATHAN CO.OP.CR.SOCIETY 1,16,674 6. KUKREJA KORAN 70,000 7. LATA P KUKREJA 1,00,000 8. MULCHAND KANDWANI 25,000 9. NARESH WOODWORKS 1,10,000 10. NEETU P KUKREJA 25,000 11. PUSHPA K KUKREJA 50,000 12. RAJESH GHANDHYAMDAS 50,000 13. S.G.MANWANI 2,00,000 14. SUNIL L MARANI 50,000 15. ANAND BUILDERS 2,30,245 16. DEEPCHAND 3,00,000 17. GOPICHAND MOTWANI 3,00,000 18. J.K. KUKREJA 20,000 19. MADHU A BHAGCHANDANI 43,000 20. MANISH GHANSHAMDANI 50,000 21. MATRU KRIPA 5,02,550 22. REKHA KUKREJA 50,000 RS. 26,57,460 III) LD CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE OLD LOANS COMING FROM EARLIER YEAR AND FRESH LOANS RAISED DURING THE YEAR WERE CONSIDERED. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE RAISED NEW LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS.15,95,795 FROM FOL LOWING TEN PERSONS, (DETAILS GIVEN IN PARA 4.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER) A S UNDER: SR. NO. NAME OF THE PERSONS LOAN AMOUNT (RS.) 1. NARESH WOOD WORKS 50,000 2. RAJESH GHANSHYAMDAS 50,000 3. ANAND BUILDERS 2,30,245 4. DEEPCHAND MOTWANI 3,00,000 5. GOPICHAND MOTWANI 3,00,000 6. J.K. KUKREJA 20,000 7. MADHU BHAGCHANDANI 43,000 8. MANISH GHANSHAMDANI 50,000 9. MATRUKRIPA DEVELOPERS 5,02,550 10. REKHA KUKREJA 50,000 RS. 15,95,795 LD CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT IN ADDITION TO ABOVE, UN SECURED LOAN OF RS.10,61,674 WERE RAISED FROM 13 PERSONS (DETAILS GIVEN AT PAGE 8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER) IN EARLIER YEAR AND SAME ARE VERIFIABLE FROM ASSESSMEN T RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.3769/MUM/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 4 LD CIT(A) HAS FURTHER STATED THAT IN RESPECT OF NEW LOANS OF RS.15,95,795 RAISED IN THE CURRENT YEAR, ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION WI TH REGARD TO M/S NARESH WOOD WORKS OF RS.50,000/-, SHRI RAJESH GHANSHYAMDAS OF R S.50,000/- AND SMT. REKHA KUKREJA OF RS.50,000 BUT NO OTHER CONFIRMATION COUL D BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD CIT(A) HAS FURTHER STATED THAT IN CASE OF LOAN O F RS.3,00,000 FROM SHRI GOPICHAND MOTWANI, A CIVIL SUIT HAS BEEN FILED AND, THEREFORE, IT PROVES THAT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS LOAN OF RS.3 LAKHS FROM SH RI GOPICHAND MOTWANI. ACCORDINGLY, LD CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE SAID LOANS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4.5 LAKHS AS GENUINE. SINCE NO LOAN CONFIRMATIONS FROM REMAI NING PARTIES FROM WHOM ASSESSEE HAD RAISED FRESH LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.11,4 5,795 WERE FILED, LD CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.11,45,795 U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AND DELETED THE BALANCE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. IV) LD CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT IN RESPECT OF OLD LO ANS OF RS.10,61,674, IT WAS CHECKED FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND EXCEPT IN TH E CASE OF SHRI S.G.MANWANI FROM WHOM ASSESSEE ALLEGEDLY STATED TO HAVE TAKEN L OAN OF RS.2 LAKHS, THE SAME ARE REFLECTED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF ASSESSEE. LD CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS N OT GIVEN ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR SUCH LOAN OF RS.2 LAKHS FROM S.G.MA NWANI AS TO WHY IT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THEREFORE, LD CIT( A) HAS DEEMED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.2 LAKHS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE. C) IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST, LD CIT(A ) HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE RAISED LOANS AT INTEREST RATE OF 18% PER ANNUM AND SINCE THE ADDITION OF RS.13,45,795 HAS BEEN CONFIRMED ON ACCOUNT OF UNVER IFIED LOANS. ACCORDINGLY, INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,42,243 NEEDS TO BE D ISALLOWED. LD CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST OF RS.1,9 5,599 IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. HENCE, LD CIT(A) HAS DISALLOWED INTEREST OF RS.1,95,599 BY ENHANCING DISALLOWANCE BY RS.2,756 BECAUSE AO MADE THE DISALL OWANCE OF RS.1,92,843. 4. HENCE, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.3769/MUM/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 5 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL RELATING TO CONFIRMATION OF ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000 TOW ARDS EXPENSES IS NOT PRESSED FOR. HENCE, GROUND NO.1 IS REJECTED. 6. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.2 OF APPEAL CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS.11,45,795 UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNCONFIRM ED NEW LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, LD A.R. REFERRED ONE CONFIRMATION LETTER ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED FROM THE LOAN CREDITOR MATRUKRIP A DEVELOPERS OF RS.5,02,550. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD A.R. ADMITTED THAT SAID C ONFIRMATION LETTER COULD NOT BE PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND IS FILED FOR THE F IRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT CONFIRMATION LETTER WAS RECEIVED ON 1.4.2006. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID CONFIRMATION LETTER, WE OBSERVE THAT ORIGI NALLY, IT WAS RECEIVED UN-DATED AND IN THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAID LETTER FILED BEFORE US, A SSESSEE HAS PLACED IN BLUE INK THE DATE AS 1.4.2006. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD A.R. WAS A SKED TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL CONFIRMATION LETTER. HE PRODUCED BEFORE US SAID C ONFIRMATION LETTER WHICH WAS PLACED IN THE FILE OF LD A.R. WE OBSERVE THAT THE SAID LETTE R ORIGINALLY WAS A PHOTOCOPY SIGNED BY ASSESSEE AND THEREON ALLEGED CONFIRMATION IS MADE B Y ALLEGED LOAN CREDITOR IN BLUE INK & IS DATED 1.4.2006. ON COMPARISON OF THE COPY PLACE D IN THE FILE OF THE LD A.R. AND PHOTOCOPY FILED BEFORE US, IT COULD BE INFERRED THA T SAID CONFIRMATION LETTER HAS BEEN FILED-IN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE COPY FILED BEFORE US IS NOT A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL CONFIRMATION LETTER, AS IN THE COPY FILED BEFORE US, IT IS DATED BY HAND IN BLUE INK. IN CASE IT IS A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ALLEGED LETTER SHO WN BY LD A.R. THE QUESTION OF PUTTING DATE IN BLUE INK IN THE COPY FILED BEFORE US SHOULD NOT BE THERE. HENCE, IT IS NOT A GENUINE PHOTOCOPY THEREOF, BUT IS A FABRICATED ONE. WHEN THE ABOVE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD A.R., HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY. HENCE, THE SAID CONFIRMATION LETTER ALLEGEDLY TAKEN FROM MATRUKRIPA DEVELOPERS OF RS.5,02,550 COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE AND CANNOT BE RELIED UPON . ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY OTHER DOCUMENT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS ALLE GEDLY TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. LD A.R. SUBMI TTED THAT THE MATTER COULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR HIS FRESH CONSIDERAT ION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, THE MATTER COULD BE C ONSIDERED TO BE RESTORED FOR VERIFICATION OR FOR INVESTIGATION AS PRAYED BY LD A .R., WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF LD A.R. HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER O F LD CIT(A) BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,45,795/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.3769/MUM/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 6 7. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.3 OF APPEAL IN CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000 U/S.68 OF THE ACT, LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS/DISALLOWANCE OF LD CIT(A). IN VIEW OF ABO VE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY , ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS MADE BY LD CIT(A) U/S.68 IS CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.3 IS REJECTED. 8. I) IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.4 OF APPEAL IN CONFIRMIN G THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,99,599, WE OBSERVE THAT AMOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS.1,99,599 STATED APPEARS TO BE A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE AS LD CIT(A) AFTER EN HANCEMENT OF DISALLOWANCE HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,95,599 ONLY. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD A.R. DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSION AS THE DISALLOWANC E IS LINKED WITH THE ADDITION OF UNVERIFIED LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS.13,45,795. II) BE THAT AS IT MAY, WE OBSERVE THAT AO HAS STATE D THAT ASSESSEE DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,95,599 UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST ON LO ANS. AO HAS STATED THAT THE TOTAL UNSECURED LOANS IS RS.26,95,444 AND HE CONFIR MED THE ADDITION OF RS.26,57,469 U/S.68 OF THE ACT AND, ACCORDINGLY CON SIDERED THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE AT RS.1,92,843. WE OBSERVE T HAT LD CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF LOANS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13,45,795 U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST COULD BE MAD E IN STEAD OF MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ENTIRE INTEREST DEBITED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO RS.97,704 (1,95,599 X13,45,795) . HENCE, GROUND NO.4 IS ALLOWED IN PART BY 26,95,444 RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.97,704 ON ACCOUN T OF INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOANS AS CONFIRMED HEREINABOVE. 9. IN GROUND NO.5 OF APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS STATED TH AT THERE WAS A FIRE BROKE UP IN THE OFFICE AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODU CE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ETC AND NON- COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S.142 (1) AND 143(2) WAS DUE TO A REASONABLE CAUSE. LD A.R. PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BOMBAY TRUST CORPORATION, 6 ITR 445 AND SUBMITTED T HAT IF THERE IS A REAOSONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE MADE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO U/S.144 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE ITA NO.3769/MUM/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 7 QUASHED. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD A.R. CONCEDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT REPAID LOANS WHICH WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THE GENUINE NESS OF LOANS EVEN AS ON DATE. ON OTHER HAND, LD D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BOMBAY TRUST CORPORATION (SUPRA) IS NOT REL EVANT AS IN THAT CASE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE DID NOT PERTAIN TO ASSESSEE BUT RELATED TO THIRD PARTY AND AS SUCH, THEY WERE NOT U NDER THE CONTROL OF ASSESSEE. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HELD THAT BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF LD AR AND THE ORDER OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BOMBAY TRU ST CORPORATION (SUPRA). WE OBSERVE THAT THE FACTS OF THAT CASE ARE NOT IDENTICAL OR AP PLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US. IN THAT CASE, ITO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUC E ACCOUNTS OF A HONG KONG COMPANY WITH WHOM ASSESSEE (BOMBAY COMPANY) WAS ALLEGED CLO SELY CONNECTED. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT BOMBAY COM PANY WAS IN A POSITION IN LAW TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OR CAUSE THEM TO BE PRODUCED AND IN THAT CONTEXT, IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN LAW TO CALL UPON ONE FRIEND TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ANOTHER AND IN DEFAULT, TO MAKE THE PARTY LIABLE U/S.22(4) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1922 I.E. CORRESPONDING PROVISION OF SECTION 144 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENT S IN RELATION TO ITS OWN TRANSACTION /BUSINESS AND THAT TOO TO PROVE THE GEN UINENESS OF LOANS ALLEGEDLY TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS LOAN CREDITORS, WHICH ASSESSE E FAILED TO PRODUCE. HENCE, THE CASE RELIED UPON BY LD A.R. (SUPRA) DOES NOT APPLY TO TH E FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED TO FRAME B EST JUDGEMENT ASSESSMENT U/S.144 OF THE ACT AS ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE REQUISITE PARTICULARS OR OTHER DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED UNSECURED LOANS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.5 TAKEN BY ASS ESSEE IS REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 SD/- (P.M.JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (B.R. MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 ITA NO.3769/MUM/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 8 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),II, THANE 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, II, THANE 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH D MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI