GEMORIOUM, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 378/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2031 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM RAI DCIT DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rejection of books of accounts; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Accommodation entries
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH HKKXPUN] YS[ KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11. M/S. GEMORIUM, 1969, DHABHAIJI KA KHURA, RAMGANJ BAZAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AACFG 7515 N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ROHAN SOGANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM RAI, (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 06.03.2018 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/03.2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28 TH MARCH, 2014 OF LD. CIT (A)-II, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 145(3) AND CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATION OF THE GROSS PROFIT AT 17 .5% AGAINST THE DECLARED GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 8.16% RESULTING INTO TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 4,78,997/-. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS IL LEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS AND ACCEPTING THE BOOK RESULTS BY DELETING THE SAID ADD ITION OF RS. 4,78,997/-. 2. (A) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCES PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE ACT ION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAI NST THE FACTS OF THE 2 ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR. CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY CONSIDERING T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL. (B) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO TO THE EXTENT OF MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 9,40,000/- U/S 68 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 25,75,500/- M ADE BY THE LD. AO. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUS TIFIED ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 9,40,000/-. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES :- PARTICULARS EXPENSES DISALLOWED TELEPHONE EXPENSES 72,758/ - 21,400/- TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES 80,724/ - VEHICLE REPAIR EXPENSES 60,491/ - TOTAL : 2,13,973/ - 21,400/ - THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFI ED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE SAID DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 21,400/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE FIRM CRAVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING REJECTION OF BOOKS OF AC COUNTS UNDER SECTION 145(3) AND CONFIRMATION OF TRADING ADDITION BY APPLYING GP RATE AT 17.5%. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSES SEE HAS STATED AT BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PRESS THE ISSUE OF REJECTION OF B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 145(3) AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS AGITATING ON LY THE TRADING ADDITION MADE BY APPLYING THE GP RATE AT 17.5% AS AGAINST DECLARED G P RATE AT 8.16%. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE GP RATE AT 17.5% BY TAKING ANOTHER ENTI TY INSTEAD OF THE PAST HISTORY OF 3 ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR. THE ASSESSEES GP RATE DECLARED. HE HAS FURTHER CO NTENDED THAT THE AO HAS SELECTED ONE COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE GP RATE WITHOUT EXPLAINING THE BASIS OF THE COMPARABILITY OF THE SAID COMPANY, NAMELY, M/S. RAINBOW JEWELLERS. THE LD. A/R HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF SAID COMPANY WHETHER IT IS A WHOLESALER OR RETAI LER AND COMPARABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTEN TION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL DA TED 15.12.2017 IN CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S. ALLIED GEMS CORPORATION IN ITA NO. 794 & 7 95/JP/2011 AND C.O. NO. 76 & 77/JP/2011 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE P AST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEES DECLARED GP IS RELEVANT GUIDANCE FOR ESTIMATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 2.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS NOTED THAT OUT OF TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS. 50,25,180/- MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, 90% OF TH E PURCHASES ARE OUTSTANDING AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2010 AND THEREFORE, THE PURCHASES OF THE AS SESSEE WERE FOUND TO BE UNVERIFIABLE. SHE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE A O HAS APPLIED THE COMPARABLE CASE OF GP INSTEAD OF TAKING PAST HISTORY OF THE AS SESSEE BECAUSE THERE IS A HISTORY OF UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE. THUS, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE GP OF THE COMPARABLE CASE INSTEAD OF TAKING PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT RE LIABLE. SHE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS FAR AS THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE BEST JUDGMENT, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN PAST HI STORY OF DECLARED GP WHICH IS 4 ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR. ACCEPTED OR THE GP WHICH HAS ATTAINED THE FINALITY CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A PROPER GUIDANCE FOR THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AFTER REJECTI ON OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 145(3). THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL IN CASE OF CIT VS. ALLIED GEMS CORPORATION, WHILE CONSIDERING AN IDENTICAL ISSUE H AS HELD IN PARA 5 AS UNDER :- 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3 ). THE ISSUE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS INVOLVED IN THE C ROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE WH ILE DECIDING THE CROSS OBJECTION. ONCE, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE RE JECTED BY THE AO THE ONLY COURSE OF ACTION LEFT TO THE AO IS TO ASS ESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF BEST JUDGMENT AND GP RATE IS CONSIDERED AS PROPER AND REASONABLE BASIS AND GUIDANCE FOR THE BE ST JUDGMENT. ONCE, THE BOOKS RESULT ARE REJECTED THE ASSESSING O FFICER CANNOT PROCEED TO MAKE AN ADDITION TO THE INCOME OFFERED B Y THE ASSESSEE AS PER BOOKS RESULT. HOWEVER, THE AO IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF APPLYING THE GP RATE MADE ON ADDITION@ 25% OF TH E PURCHASES TO THE BOOK RESULTS. THIS ACT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF CONTRADICTS THE DECISION OF REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BOO KS RESULT. THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) IN PARA 2.20 AND 2.30 AS UNDER:- 2.20 HENCE, THERE ARE CERTAIN CONCERNS FOR WHICH R EVENUE GOT EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF STATEMENT RECORDED IN RESPE CT OF SUCH PARTIES, OPENING BALANCE IS RS. 37,06,175/- WHILE T HE CLOSING BALANCE IS RS. 42,81,496/-. IT MEANS THAT THERE IS AN ACCRETION OF AMOUNT OF RS. 5.75/- LACS. IT MEANS THAT TO THIS EXTENT, ACCRETION IN PURCHASE IS WITHOUT SUPPORTING THE COR RECT BILLS. OF COURSE, TOTAL OPENTING BALANCE OF ALL PARTIES IS RS . 1,15,43,782/- AND THE CLOSING BALANCE IS RS. 1,33,36,193/-. HOWEV ER, LOOKING TO THE ACCRETION IN THE CLOSING BALANCE OF THE CONC ERNS FOR WHICH 5 ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR. REVENUE HAS MATERIAL, THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS REASONABLE. 2.30 THE HONBLE P & H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UP LAKESH METAL INDUSTRIAL V CIT 177 TAXMAN 298 HELD THAT ISS UE DECIDED BY THIS IS IN THE REALM OF APPRECIATION EVIDENCE. T HE FIND OF TRIBUNAL AS MENTIONED IN THIS JUDGMENT IS AS UNDER: - ' HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PRIMA FACIE REQUIRED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS IS NOT MISPLACED BECAUSE THERE IS NO DISTINCTION LAID BETWEEN THE TRADE CREDITOR AND THE NON-TRADE CREDITOR AND WE AR E FURTHER OF THE OPINION THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS LIABIL ITY OF PAYMENT TO THE TRADE CREDITORS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET, THE ASSESSEE IS DEFINITELY REQUIRED TO PRIMA FACIE PROVE THE IDE NTITY OF THE TRADE CREDITORS AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE T RANSACTION. IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER BEEN ABLE TO DISCLOSE THE COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE TRADE CREDIT ORS NOR IS ABLE TO GIVE THE COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE CONSIGNO RS NOR THE NAME HAS BEEN MENTIONED ON THE CHALLAN FORMS, SO TH E VERIFICATION OF THE SAME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER B ECAME TOTALLY IMPRACTICABLE ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF THIS COMPLETE I NFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT MEANS THAT THE ASSESSE E FAILED IN ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS OF THE SO CALLED TRADE CREDITORS APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE ARE FURTHER O F THE OPINION THAT SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE POINT UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US IS REGARDING THE GENUINENES S OF THE LIABILITY AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,75,26,586 SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BALANCE-SHEET AS TRADE CREDITORS, SO IT WAS NOT RELEVANT FOR US TO CONSIDER AS TO WHETHER THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE GENUINE OR NOT OR TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED THOSE PURCHASES OR NOT. IT IS ALSO NOT MATERIAL TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE GRS FROM SALE-TAX DEPARTMENT WERE VERIF IED OR NOT, SO, THE CIT(A) ON CONSIDERING THESE POINTS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WITHOUT DISCUSSING A S TO WHETHER THE LIABILITY OF TRADE CREDITORS SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE ABSENCE OF FURNISHING COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF TRADE CREDITORS/CONSIGNORS AND THE PAYMENT VOUCHERS WAS G ENUINE OR NOT.' 6 ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR. WHILE EVALUATING THE MATERIAL COLLECTED BY THE REVE NUE ON THE TOUCH STONE ON HUMAN PROBABILITY AND CONSIDERING TH E ACCRETION IN THE CLOSING BALANCE IN RESPECT OF PARTIES FOR WH ICH REVENUE HAS MATERIAL IN THEJFORM OF STATEMENT. WE FELL THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS REASONABLE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5. 00 LACS. HENCE BOTH THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVEN UE ARE DISMISSED. WE FURTHER NOTED THAT WHEN THE CORRESPONDING SALE I S NOT IN DISPUTE THEN THE QUESTION IS ONLY REGARDING THE CORRECT AMO UNT OF PURCHASES AND VERIFICATION OF THE SAME. THE LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT IN ALL THOSE DECISIONS THERE WAS A FINDING OF FACTS THAT T HE ASSESSEE INFLATED THE PURCHASES UPTO 25% AND THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT A CASE OF NON VERIFICATION OF THE PURCHASE AND REJECTION OF BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS BUT THE FACT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE INVESTIGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE INFLATED THE PURCHASE PRICE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF 25% BEING INFLATED PURCHASES WAS MADE AND UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS AGAIN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. ON THE CONTRARY I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING OF INFLATED P URCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE BUT DOUBTED THE VERY TRANSACTION OF PURCHA SES DUE TO NON PRODUCTION OF THESE PARTIES BEFORE THE AO. THE AO H AS NOT GIVEN THE FINDING THAT THE PRICES OF THE GOODS WAS INFLATED B Y THE ASSESSEE BUT THE AO DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUPPLIERS WERE FOUND TO BE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIE S PROVIDERS. WHEN THE AO REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT, THEN THE AO AFTER REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CAN PROC EED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF BEST JUDGMENT INSTEAD OF RESORTING MAKE THE ADDITION TO THE BOOK RESULTS. ACCORDINGLY, IN T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISI ON OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESTR ICTING THE ADDITION TO THE AVERAGE GP RATE BASED ON THE PAST HISTORY. HENCE, T HE GROUNDS RAISED 7 ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR. IN THE REVENUE APPEALS ARE REJECTED BEING WITHOUT A NY SUBSTANCE OR MERITS. THOUGH THERE ARE DISPUTES REGARDING THE VERIFIABILI TY OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESEE EVEN IN THE PAST YEARS, HOWEVER, WHEN THE I SSUE OF APPLYING THE GP RATE HAS ALREADY BEEN SETTLED IN THE PROCESS OF APPEALS AND HAS ATTAINED THE FINALITY THEN THE GP WHICH HAS ATTAINED THE FINALITY OR WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTIMATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO COM PUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING THE AVERAGE GP OF THE PAST YEARS OF THE A SSESSEE WHICH IS ACCEPTED AND/OR ATTAINED FINALITY. HENCE THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE FO R LIMITED PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE AVERAGE GP FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,40, 000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT (A). 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 25,75,500/- ON AC COUNT OF PARTNERS CAPITAL AND FURTHER RS. 9,40,000/- AS UNSECURED LOAN. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, THE AO MAD E THE ADDITION OF THESE AMOUNTS AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF T HE IT ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF R S. 25,75,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNER. HOWEVER, THE LD . CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. ROYAL JAIPUR DURBAR HOTELS PVT. LTD. BEF ORE US, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED T HE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF 8 ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR. THE LOAN CREDITOR WHICH REFLECTS THE PAYMENT OF THE MONEY THROUGH CHEQUE AND, THEREFORE, WHEN THE TRANSACTION OF LOAN AMOUNT RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL THEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED T O EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE SOURCE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON TH E DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ARAVALI TRADING CO. VS. I TO, 187 TAXMAN 338 (RAJ.) AS WELL AS THE DECISION DATED 3 RD MAY, 2016 IN CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT VS. M/S. SHUBH MINES PVT. LTD. IN DBIT APPEAL NO. 96/15. PLACING RELIAN CE ON THESE DECISIONS, THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE EXISTENCE OF PERSON IN WHOSE NAME THE CREDITS ARE FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS PROVED, THE ASSES SEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE SOURCE FROM WHICH THE CREDITOR COULD HAVE ACQUIRED MONEY TO BE DEPOSITED WITH IT. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS FORCEFULLY CONTENDED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE RECORDS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR A ND BANK STATEMENT, THEN NO FURTHER EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF T HE CLAIM. 4.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE EVEN THE CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN CREDITOR AS WELL AS PAN. THE LOAN CREDITOR COMPANY IS A RELATED PARTY OF THE ASSESSEE AS ONE O F THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS A DIRECTOR OF THE SAID COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE NON PRODUCTION OF CONFIRMATION AND PAN CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. THE LD. D/R HAS REFERRED TO THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE LOAN CREDITOR AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DEPOSIT O F AN IDENTICAL AMOUNT IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY AND, THEREFORE, THI S IS NOT A CASE OF PAYMENT OF LOAN BY THE COMPANY FROM THE KNOWN SOURCE BUT CHEQU ES WERE ISSUED JUST AFTER DEPOSIT OF CASH OF LIKE AMOUNT. HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH SOURCE OF CASH CREDIT. IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTION, THE FOL LOWING DECISIONS ARE RELIED ON :- 9 ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR. BLESSING CONSTRUCTION VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32 TAXMANN.COM 366 (GUJARAT) DAYAL SINGH AND SONS VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X 20 TAXMANN.COM 687 (P&H) UMESH KRISHNANI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 35 TAXMANN.COM 598 (GUJARAT) 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE CASH CREDIT OF R S. 9,40,000/- BEING LOAN TAKEN FROM M/S. ROYAL JAIPUR DURBAR HOTELS PVT. LTD. THE RE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE PRIMARY ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENES S, CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED BANK STA TEMENT FROM WHICH THE SAID COMPANY HAS ISSUED THE CHEQUES FOR PAYMENT OF THE A MOUNT. HOWEVER, APART FROM THE BANK STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED A NY OTHER DOCUMENTS. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT EVEN THE CONFIRMATION WITH PAN WAS NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS PRIMARY ONUS. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT WHEN THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE LOAN CREDITOR COMPANY, THEN THE BURDEN LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION BEYOND ANY IOTA OF D OUBT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED ANY REASON FOR NOT FURNISHING THE CONFIRM ATION AND PAN OF THE LOAN CREDITOR DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PARTNER OF THE A SSESSEE IS ALSO A DIRECTOR OF THE SAID COMPANY. THE RELEVANT TRANSACTIONS OF THE PAY MENTS RECEIVED FROM THE SAID COMPANY AS PER THE BANK STATEMENT AT PAGE 81 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE AS UNDER :- TO: M/S ROYAL DARPAR HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED 46, GULISTAN-E-SHAMEEN, GOVINDPURI WEST, AMER ROAD, JAIPUR JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN 10 ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR. 302006 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD OF 01-10-2009 T O 30-10-2009 DATE PARTICULARS CHQ NO/ REF. NO. WITHDRAWALS DEPOSITS BALANCE 01 - OCT - 2009 B/F 3224.92CR 19-OCT-2009 CASH 475000.00 478224.92CR 19-OCT-2009 TRF TO CD244 504601 475 000.00 3224.92CR 21-OCT-2009 CASH 265000.00 268224.92CR 22-OCT-2009 CASH 200000.00 468224.92CR 24-OCT-2009 TRF TO CD244 504602 46 5000.00 3224.92CR PAGE TOTAL 940000.00 940000.00 3224.92CR GRAND TOTAL: 940000.00 940000.00 3224.92CR FUNDS IN CLEARING: 0.00 TOTAL AVAILABLE ACCOUNT: 3224.92CR UNLESS THE CONSTITUENT NOTIFIES THE BANK IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND BY HIM IN THIS STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, IT WILL BE TAKEN THAT HE HAS FOUND THE ACCOUNT CORRECT. DATE STAMP MANAGER THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT BEFORE ISSUING THE CHEQUE THE RE IS A DEPOSIT OF EQUAL AMOUNT IN CASH ON 19 TH OCTOBER, 2009 AND FURTHER WHEN A CHEQUE OF RS. 4,6 5,000/- WAS ISSUED, AN IDENTICAL AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH ON 21 ST AND 22 ND OCTOBER, 2009. FROM THE ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LOAN CREDITO R IT CLEARLY REVEALS THE FACT THAT THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED ONLY FOR THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS D EPOSITED IN CASH JUST PRIOR TO THE DATE OF CHEQUE, OTHERWISE THE BALANCE IN THE SA ID ACCOUNT WAS ONLY RS. 3,224/-. HENCE THE BANK STATEMENT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE D OES NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF 11 ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR. THE ASSESSEE IN EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CREDIT RAT HER IT SPEAKS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND CREATES DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRAN SACTIONS. DESPITE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A), TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY OF THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE EVEN BEFORE US TO EX PLAIN THE SOURCE OF CREDIT. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF BLESSING CONS TRUCTION VS. ITO (SUPRA) WHILE DEALING WITH AN IDENTICAL ISSUE OF CASH CREDIT HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 4 TO 7 AS UNDER :- 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE IN APPEAL. THE COMM ISSIONER(APPEALS) RE- EXAMINED THE ENTIRE ISSUE AT LENGTH. HE OBSERVED AS UNDER : '5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BOTH THE POSITIONS. I HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE AR INCLUDING ACCOUNT CONFIRMATIONS, COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS OF THE DEPOSITORS, THEIR BALANCE-SHEETS, P & L ACCOUNTS, AND CAPITAL A CCOUNTS AS ALSO THEIR BANK STATEMENTS. THE FIRST DEPOSITOR WAS SHRI HASMU KH R. MEHTA, AGAINST WHOM THE LOAN OF RS.3 LAKHS WAS SHOWN. HIS BANK STATEMENT WITH HDFC BANK SHOWS, AMONGST OTHER TRANSACTIONS, A DEPOSIT OF RS. 3 LAKHS ON 29.6.2006 BY CHEQUE. THE LOAN WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE ON 4.7.2006. IT CANNOT THEREFORE BE SAID THA T UNEXPLAINED CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI HASMUKH R. MEH TA BEFORE GIVING THE SAID LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE NEXT DEPOSITOR W AS SHRI JIMIT M. MEHTA, HIS BANK ACCOUNT SHOWED A DEPOSIT OF RS.1,50 ,000/- IN CASH ON 24.3.2005. ON THE VERY NEXT DAY, HE ISSUED A CHEQUE OF RS.1,50,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. PRIOR TO THE SAID DEPOSIT, HIS BAL ANCE WAS ONLY RS. 2,056.20 WITH NO MAJOR CREDITS. THE EXTRACT OF HIS CASH BOOK SHOWS NO CASH BALANCE PRIOR TO DEPOSITING SUCH CASH INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT. NEXT WAS SMT. KOKILABEN M. MEHTA; A LOAN OF RS. 1,50,000 /- WAS SHOWED IN HER NAME. ON 6.11.2004 THE SAID SUM WAS DEPOSITED I N CASH IN HER BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA. ON 8.11.2004 THE CHEQU E WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE BALANCE IN HER ACCOUNT PRIOR TO T HIS TRANSACTION WAS ONLY RS.1,444.95. HER CASH BOOK SHOWS CAPITAL BUILD UP FROM STITCHING AND EMBROIDERY INCOME EVERY MONTH. THE RETURN OF TH E INCOME FILED BY HER FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 DECLARED AN INCOME OF ONLY RS.51,904/-. IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY BEING PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. SHE SIMPLY DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE CREDITWORTHIN ESS TO GIVE THE LOAN. 6. COMING TO M/S. NIRAV GEMS, WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE G IVEN A LOAN OF RS.1,50,000/- THE SITUATION WAS EXACTLY THE SAME. C ASH OF RS. 1,50,000/- WAS DEPOSITED ON 8.11.2004 AND THE LOAN WAS GIVEN ON TH E VERY NEXT DAY. BEFORE THE DEPOSIT, THE BALANCE IN ITS ACCOUNT WITH DENA B ANK, RAMPURA BRANCH WAS ONLY RS. 4,008.87. HE ALSO BUILD UP HIS CAPITAL BY SHOWING DIAMOND BROKERAGE 12 ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR. INCOME OF APPROXIMATELY RS. 3,000 PER MONTH. ONCE A GAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER CASE OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY BEING PROVIDED TO THE ASSESS EE. SHRI NIRAV M MEHTA WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE GIVEN A LOAN OF RS. 1 LAKH TO T HE ASSESSEE, CASH WAS DEPOSITED ON 6.11.2004 IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH DEN A BANK AND THE LOAN WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON 9.11.2004. HIS ACCOUNT SHO WS SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS OF ROTATING MONEY AT REGULAR INTERVALS. THE AVERAGE BA LANCE PRIOR TO THE SAID DEPOSIT WAS APPROXIMATELY RS. 2,000-RS. 3000. SHRI SEVANTILAL A. MEHTA HAD A BALANCE OF RS. 5557 BEFORE DEPOSITING CASH OF RS 1 LAKH ON 15.1.2005 AND GIVING THE SAID SUM AS A LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18 .1.2005. SMT. SUSHILABEN R. SANGHVI HAD A BALANCE OF RS. 550.05 BEFORE CASH OF RS. 1,50,000 WAS DEPOSITED IN HER ACCOUNT AND A CHEQUE OF THE SAID S UM ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18.1.2005. SMT. TARABEN A. MEHTA HAD A BALANCE O F RS. 2,557.35 AS ON 9.11.2004. ON 24.1.2005, I.E. MORE THAN TWO MONTHS LATER, WITH NO TRANSACTION IN BETWEEN, SUMS OF RS. 3000 AND FOUR INSTALLMENTS OF RS.49,000 EACH WERE DEPOSITED IN CASH IN HER BANK ACCOUNT ON 24.1.2005 CREATING THE NECESSARY FUND FOR GIVING THE LOAN OF RS.2 LAKHS THE VERY NEX T DAY I.E. 25.1.2005. 6.1 THE AFORESAID FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE AVAIL ABILITY OF FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF THE DEPOSITORS WERE MANIPULATED BY DEPOSITING CA SH IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS EXCEPT FOR SHRI HASMUKH R. MEHTA. EVEN THOUGH FOUR OF THE DEPOSITORS MAY HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONF IRMED THE LOANS, EVEN THEN THE LOANS DID NOT STAND SATISFACTORY EXPLAINED , ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED DEPOSITORS. THE IDE NTITIES OF FOUR DEPOSITORS WERE ESTABLISHED ONLY BY THEIR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. HOWEVER, THE RETURNS OF INCOME CANNOT BE TREATED AS A CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE O F GENUINE IDENTITY OR EVEN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS CONSIDERED THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF BOGUS RETURNS AND BANK ACCOUNTS ARE OPENED FOR PROV IDING SUCH ENTRIES, THE PRACTICE OF WHICH IN SURAT IS ALMOST AN INDUSTRY, A PART FROM THE TEXTILE AND DIAMOND INDUSTRIES. ON THE FACE OF IT THE TRANSACTI ONS WERE MADE LOOK ABSOLUTELY GENUINE AS THE LOANS WERE TAKEN BY ACCOU NT-PAYEE CHEQUES, THE DEPOSITORS HAD FILED THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME, HAD P REPARED THEIR ACCOUNTS, HAD THEIR OWN BANK ACCOUNTS AND FOUR OF THEM HAD EVEN A PPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNFORTUNATELY, A DEEP SCRUTINY I NTO THE PILE OF DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE AR AND THE ASSESSEE, BOTH IN ASST. PROCEEDINGS AND IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS CLEARLY REVEAL THAT THE MANIP ULATIONS, THE MANNER IN WHICH CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF SE VEN OF THE ALLEGED DEPOSITORS IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO ISSUING THE CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE. IT MAY BE ALRIGHT TO CONTEND BY RELYING ON COURT DECISIONS TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT COMPETENT TO ENQUIRE INTO THE SOURCE OF SOURCE OF THE LOANS YET, THE COURTS HAVE ALSO HELD THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEP OSITORS/LENDERS HAVE TO BE NECESSARILY ESTABLISHED. THOUGH THIS IS CLEARLY A C ONTRADICTORY AND DICHOTOMOUS SITUATION YET, THE NECESSITY OF ENQUIRI ES REGARDING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED DEPOSITORS CANNOT S IMPLY BE WISHED AWAY. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SUCH ENQUIRIES HAVE CLEAR LY REVEALED THAT, APART FROM SHRI HASMUKH R. MEHTA, THE REMAINING SEVEN ALLEGED DEPOSITORS SIMPLY DID NOT HAVE THE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO GIVE THE LOANS TO T HE ASSESSEE. THE FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE BY SURREPTITIOUS MEANS WHICH WAS NOT EXPL AINABLE. GIVEN SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I HOLD THAT OF THE U NEXPLAINED LOANS OF RS. 13 LAKHS, ONLY THE LOANS OF RS. 3 LAKHS IN THE NAME OF SHRI HASMUKH R. MEHTA, 13 ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR. STOOD SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED. THE REMAINING LOANS OF RS. 10 LACS REPRESENTED ABSOLUTELY BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ADDITIO N TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 10 LAKHS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 68 OF THE IT ACT IS SUSTAINED.' 5. NOT SATISFIED WITH SUCH CONCLUSIONS, ASSESSEE APPR OACHED THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL CONCURRED WITH THE VIEW OF THE REVENUE AUT HORITIES AND DISMISSED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. IT WAS NOTICED THAT CASH WAS DEP OSITED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF SUCH DEPOSITORS SHORTLY PRIOR TO GIVING SUCH LOANS. THER E WERE NO OTHER TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE SAID TWO PARTIES EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER GIVING OF SUCH LOANS. IT WAS NOTICED THAT AFTER GIVING THE LOAN, VERY SMALL AMOUNTS REMA INED IN THE ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITORS. DEPOSITORS HAD NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . THOUGH ALL CREDITORS WERE MAINTAINING THEIR BOOK ACCOUNTS, NOTHING HAS COME O N RECORD WHY THE TRANSACTIONS WERE CONDUCTED IN CASH. TRIBUNAL THEREFORE, HELD TH AT THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF SURROUND ING CIRCUMSTANCES AND NATURAL PROBABILITIES. THE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS AN D GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT VEHEMENTLY CONTE NDED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL TRIBUNAL COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRO R IN INQUIRING WITH THE ASSESSEE THE SOURCE OF THE INCOME OF THE CREDITORS. HE CONTENDED THAT WHILE EXAMINING THE QUESTION OF ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE C ANNOT BE EXPECTED TO ESTABLISH SOURCE OF THE SOURCE. IN THIS CONTEXT, HE PLACED HE AVY RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : (1) CIT V. JAY DEE SECURITIES & FINANCE LTD. [2013] 32 TAXMANN.COM 91 (ALL.) (2) NEMI CHAND KOTHARI V. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 TAXMAN 213 (GAU.) . (3) S. HASTIMAL V. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 273 (MAD.) 6.1 COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT ON LY ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITORS, HAD RECEIVED THE AMOUNT THROUGH CHEQUE. GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION THEREFORE, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DOUBTED. THE CREDITW ORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS ALSO WAS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED. ASSESSEE THEREAFTER, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASKED TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF THE INCOME OF SUCH CREDITOR S. 7. WITH RESPECT TO THE LEGAL CONTENTION THAT THE REVE NUE CANNOT INSIST ON ASSESSEE SUPPLYING THE SOURCE OF SOURCE IS IMPECCABLE. HOWEV ER, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT. IT IS OF-COURSE TRUE THAT SOM E OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL MAY SUGGEST THAT THE TRIBUNAL DID CONCERN ITSELF WITH THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE. HOWEVER, SUCH OBSERVATIONS CANNOT BE PICKED IN ISOLATION AS TO TREAT THAT AS THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBUNAL. WHEN ONE READS THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT OF THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) AND ALSO OF THE TRIBUNAL, INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION ONE ARRIVES AT IS THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION NOT GENUINE. THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDE NCE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT IN CASE OF ALL THE DEPOSITORS, THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS CON TAINED MEAGER BALANCE SHORTLY BEFORE SIZABLE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 LAKH AND UPWARD WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH 14 ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR. SUCH ACCOUNT. IN SUCH BANK ACCOUNTS, CASH AMOUNTS W ERE CREDITED AND IMMEDIATELY ENTIRE AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN THROUGH ISSUANCE OF S UCH CHEQUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS NOTICED THAT SUCH CREDITORS DID NO T MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NOWHERE THEIR CAPACITY TO RAISE SUCH AMOUNT FOR DRA WING CHEQUE OF SIZABLE AMOUNTS WAS ESTABLISHED. IN SHORT THEREFORE, THE V VERY GEN UINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. THIS THEREFORE, IS NOT A CASE WHERE TH E REVENUE MAKES ADDITION ON THE ASSESSEE FAILING TO ESTABLISH SOURCE OF THE SOURCE. ALL ISSUES ARE ESSENTIALLY BASED ON FACTS AND APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD. NO QU ESTION OF LAW ARISES. TAX APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THUS THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE P ECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE REVENUE CANNOT INSIST ON ASSESSEE SUPPLYING SOURCE OF SOURCE. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DAYAL SI NGH & SONS VS. CIT (SUPRA) WHEN THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TR ANSACTION TO BE CONSIDERED AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM THE D EPOSITS IN CASH ON THE SAME DAY WHEN THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED. ACCORDINGLY, IN V IEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND EVEN FAILED TO PRODUCE THE CONFIRMATION AND PAN OF THE LOAN CREDITOR, THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS JUSTIFIED AS THE RECORD PRODUCED BY THE AS SESSEE ALSO GOES AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ISSUE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN GROUND NO. 2(A). HOWEVER, SINCE THIS EVIDENCE WAS DULY CO NSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT (A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, THEREFORE, NO ARGUMENT HAS BE EN ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE AS THE ISSUE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. GRO UND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 15 ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR. GROUND NO. 3 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES . 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. A/R STATED AT BAR T HAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PRESS THIS GROUND AND THE SAME BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE LD. D/R HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRES SED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/03/20 18. SD/- SD/- ( HKKXPUN ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO ( BHAGCHAND ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 08/03/2018. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 378/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 16 ITA NO. 378/JP/2014 M/S. GEMORIUM, JAIPUR.