ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Jay Shiva Earthmovers & Construction Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 3995/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3232 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 274; 143(2); 208; 72; 22; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3995/DEL/2010 AY: 2006-07 ITO, WARD 4(2), ROOM NO. 413A, C.R. BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI VS. JAY SHIVA EARTHMOVERS & CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., BU-60, SFS FLATS, OUTER RING ROAD, PITAMPURA, DELHI 85 (PAN: AABCJ1414D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SATYAJEET GOEL, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. R.K. GUPTA, ADDL. CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.6.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-VII, NEW DELHI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON 28.11. 2004 DECLARING INCOME AT RS. NIL AFTER ADJUSTING THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF A.Y. 2000-01 TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,18,801/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) WAS ISSUED ON 05.10.2007. THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 19.12. 2008 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 3,04,98,629/- BY MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,07,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER 2 DATED 20.01.2009. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DAT ED 20.1.2009, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGN ED ORDER DATED 30.6.2010 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGR IEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.6.2010, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDE R PASSED BY THE AO AND THE REITERATED THE CONTENTION RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND REQUESTED THAT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE ALL OWED. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE R ELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSE D A WELL REASONED ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF LAW. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1-58, TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ESPECIALLY THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ALONGWITH THE PAPER BOOK. WE HAVE GONE THRO UGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND FOUND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS EL ABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AND DECIDED THE SAME VIDE PARA NO. 5.5 T O 5.14 OF THE ORDER AT PAGE 14 TO 19, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 5.5 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT O RDER, THE WRITTEN AND ORAL SUBMISSION(S) OF THE APPELLANT, TH E REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O AND THE FACTS ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RAISED FRESH UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 4,6 7,00,000/- FROM 22 CREDITORS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON, OUT OF WHICH THE LOANS FROM 7 (SEVEN) CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,60,00,0001- WERE FOUND TO HAVE SATISFACTORILY EXP LAINED BY THE 3 ASSESSING OFFICER. THE BALANCE SUM OF RS. 3,07,00,0 00/- FROM 15 CREDITORS WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SO URCES. 5.6 SINCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT, IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. SECTION 68 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR THE SAME MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE PRE VIOUS YEAR IF HE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE & SOURCE THE REOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT SATISFACTORY IN T HE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARG ED TO INCOME TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE RELEVANT P REVIOUS YEAR. THEREFORE, WHAT HAS TO BE ENQUIRED INTO BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS THE NATURE & SOURCE OF THE SUM OR DEPOSIT. SUCH OPI NION FORMED ITSELF CONSTITUTES A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE RECEIPT OF MONEY AND IF THE ASSESSE E FAILS TO REBUT THE SAID EVIDENCE THE SAME CAN BE USED AGAINST HIM BY HOLDING THAT IT WAS A RECEIPT OF INCOME AS HELD IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (1995) 214LTR 801(SC). IT WAS HELD BY THE H ON'BLE APEX COURT: 'IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT IN ALL CASES IN WHICH A R ECEIPT IS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED AS INCOME, THE BURDEN LIES ON THE DEPARTME NT TO PROVE THAT IT IS WITHIN THE TAXING PROVISION AND IF A REC EIPT IS IN THE NATURE OF INCOME, THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT IT IS NOT TAX ABLE BECAUSE IT FALLS WITHIN THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED BY THE ACT LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE .... BUT IN VIEW OF SECTION 68 OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961, 4 WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR IT MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX A S THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR IF THE EXPLAN ATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF IS , IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOT SATISFACTORY. IN SUCH A CASE THERE IS, PRIMA FACIE, EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, VIZ., T HE RECEIPT OF MONEY, AND IF HE FAILS TO REBUT THE SAID EVIDENCE, IT CAN BE USED AGAINST HIM BY HOLDING THAT IT WAS A RECEIPT OF AN INCOME NATURE.' 5.7 IN A. GOVINDARAJULU MUDALIAR V. CIT [1958] 34 I TR 807, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT IT IS FOR THE A SSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCES AND THE NATURE' OF THE RECEIPTS APPEARI NG IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO PROVE NEITHER THE SOURCE NOR THE NATURE OF THE RECEIPTS, AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN SETH KALEKHAN MAHOMED HANIF V . CLT [1958] 34 ITR 669 WHICH DECISION HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN KALEKHAN MOHAMMAD HANIFV. CIT [196 3] 50 ITR L. THE SAME PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN REITERATED BY THE H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. DEVI PRASAD VISHWANATH PRASAD [1969 ] 72 ITR 194, BY CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN SHANKAR INDUSTRIES LTD. V . CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689, C. KANT & CO. V. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 63, OR IENTAL WIRE INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD. V. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 688, PRA KASH TEXTILE AGENCY VS. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 890 & CIT VS. KORLAY TRADING COMPANY LTD. (1999) 232 ITR 820, BY ORISSA HIGH COU RT IN CIT VS. B.C. MOHANTY (1995) 212 ITR 199 AND BY GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN LALAN TIMBERS VS. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (GAU.).IN V IEW OF ABOVE, THE ENTIRE BURDEN IS UPON THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSE SSEE HAS TO PROVE THE FOLLOWING THREE CONDITIONS:- 5 (I) IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR; (II) CAPACITY OF SUCH CREDITOR TO ,ADVANCE MONEY & (III) GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IF ALL THE AFORESAID THREE CONDITIONS ARE PROVED TH E BURDEN SHIFTS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO TH E ASSESSEE. [CIT VS. UNITED COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CO. (P) LTD . (1991) 187 ITR 596 (CAL.); M.A. UNNEERI KUTTY VS. CIT (1992)198 IT R 147 (KER.); CIT VS. PRECISION FINANCE P. LTD. (1994) 208 ITR 495(CA L.). 5.8 SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY T HE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P. MOHANAKALA (2007) 2 91 ITR 278 (SC). THE APEX COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 'THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE AND SCOPE OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT? WHEN AND IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD SECTI ON 68 OF THE ACT COME INTO PLAY? A BARE READING OF SECTION 68 SU GGESTS THAT THERE HAS TO BE CREDIT OF AMOUNTS IN THE BOOKS MAIN TAINED BY AN ASSESSEE : SUCH CREDIT HAS TO BE OF A SUM DURING TH E PREVIOUS YEAR 'AND THE ASSESSEES OFFER NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE N ATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH CREDIT FOUND IN THE BOOKS ; OR THE E XPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFACTORY, IT IS ONLY THEN THE SUM SO CREDIT ED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES OF THA T PREVIOUS YEAR. THE EXPRESSION 'THE ASSESSEES OFFER NO EXPLANATION' MEANS WHERE THE ASSESSEES OFFER NO PROPER, REASONABLE AND ACCEP TABLE EXPLANATION AS REGARDS THE SUMS FOUND CREDITED IN T HE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEES. IT IS TRUE THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING 6 OFFICER FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED B Y THE ASSESSEES AS NOT SATISFACTORY IS REQUIRED TO BE BASED ON PROP ER APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL AND OTHER ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO BE FORMED OBJECTIVELY WITH REFERENCE TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON RECORD. APPLICATION OF MIND IS THE SINE QUA NON FOR FORMING THE OPINION. 5.9 ON THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN THE LIGHT OF THE CASE LAWS MENTIONED ABOVE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE IDENTIT Y AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS BY FURNISHING THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS , ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS INCLUDING PAN AND COPY OF I.T. RETURN, BALANCE-SHEET & P&L ACCOUNT, BANK STATEMENT TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMEN TS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS IN RESPECT OF TH E FOLLOWING LOAN CREDITORS:- AMOUNT (IN RUPEES) I) M/S CHANGIA STEEL PVT LTD 15,00,000/- II) M/S NISHANT FINVEST PVT LTD 15,00,000/- III) M/S SHREE DINANATH LOHARIWALA 15,00,000/- SPINNING MILLS PVT LTD IV) M/S SHRINIWAS LEASING & 30,00,000/- FINANCE PVT LTD V) M/S SPARROW MARKETING PVT LTD 44,00,000/-- VI) M/S SHEKHAWATI FINANCE PVT. LTD. 15,00,000/- 7 VII) M/S DREAMLAND SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 30,00,000/ - VIII)M/S GANGA INFIN PVT. LTD. 25,00,000/- IX)M/S MEGHDOOT EXPRESS PVT. LTD. 15,00,000/- X) M/S GARG FINVEST PVT. LTD. 15,00,000/- XI)SH. SURJEET MULTANIK ALIAS BAWA 55,00,000/- TOTAL 2,74,00,000/- 5.10 IT IS NOTED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE AFOREMENT IONED LOAN CREDITORS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY SUBMITTING THEIR PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER(PAN) AND INCOME TAX RETURNS; IT IS A LSO OBSERVED THAT THE LOAN CREDITORS OR LENDERS FROM SERIAL NOS. (I) TO (X) IN PARA 5.10 ABOVE ARE CORPORATE ASSESSEES, INCORPORATED UN DER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT; GENUINENESS HAS BEEN PROVED BY THE F ACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE THROUGH BANKING CHANN ELS WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE BANK ACCOUN TS OF THE RESPECTIVE LOAN CREDITORS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THROUGH SUBMISSION OF THEIR BALANCE SHE ET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE CREDITWO RTHINESS IS REFLECTED THROUGH SOURCES OF FUNDS IN THE BALANCE S HEET, THE DETAILS OF WHICH WERE MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT/ REMAND AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ON TH E BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE LENDERS HAD SUFF ICIENT FUNDS TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT AND TO ADVANCE LOANS AND THOSE INVESTMENTS/ LOANS HAVE BEEN DULY DISCLOSED IN ITS BALANCE SHEET. 8 5.11 IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THAT THE DIRECTORS OF TH E FIVE LOAN CREDITORS COMPANIES, NAMELY, M/S SHEKHAWATI FINANCE PVT LTD, M/S DREAMLAND SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, M/S GANGA LNFIN PV T LTD., M/S MEGHDOOT EXPRESS PVT LTD. AND M/S GARG FINVEST PVT LTD.( WHOSE NAMES ARE APPEARING AT SERIAL NOS. VI, VII,VIII, IX AND X RESPECTIVELY IN PARA 5.10 ABOVE) APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RE CORDED AND IN THEIR STATEMENTS, THEY HAVE CONFIRMED HAVING ADV ANCED LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURJEET MULTANI ALIAS BAWA WHO HAS ADVANCED LOAN OF RS.55,00,000/-, IT IS OBSERVED THAT HE IS A RESIDENT OF LOS ANGELES, USA AND HE DOES NOT HAVE P ERMANENT ACCOUNT UMBER WHICH ALSO IMPLIES THAT HE IS NOT ASS ESSED TO INCOME-TAX. HOWEVER, THE PERUSAL OF COPY OF BANK ST ATEMENT RELATING TO THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY HIM WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, NEW DELHI REVEALS IT IS A CURRENT ON-RESIDEN T ACCOUNT WHEREIN THERE ARE SUFFICIENT FUNDS/BALANCES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,50,07,666/- AVAILABLE SO AS TO ENABLE THE SAID LO AN CREDITOR, SHRI SURJEET MULTANI ALIAS BAWA TO ADVANCE A LOAN OF RS. 55,00,000/- TO THE APPELLANT. THESE DETAILS SHOW THAT THE LENDER W AS PERSON OF MEANS WITH THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO ADVANCE THE LO ANS. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE PRIMARY ONUS OF PROOF REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, THE 'CAPACITY' OF SUCH CREDITOR TO AD VANCE THE SAID AMOUNT AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAS B EEN DISCHARGED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF LOAN ADVA NCED BY SHRI SURJEET MULTANI ALIAS BAWA. 9 5.12 WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE CONFIRMATION L ETTERS GIVING THE DETAILS SUCH AS PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER (PAN), COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURN, BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS, THE PRIMARY ONUS OF PROO F HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY IT. HOWEVER, THE A.O. CANNOT BE PRECL UDED FROM FURTHER INVESTIGATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINDING TH E GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE ANY ENQUIRY FROM (A) THE BANKS FROM W HERE THE CHEQUES (CORRESPONDING TO THE LOANS) WERE ISSUED AN D CLEARED; (B) THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CONCERNED OF THE LOAN CREDIT ORS, FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE LOANS BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE CO NCLUSION THAT THEY REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR MATER IAL TO EVEN SUGGEST, AS POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE MONEY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY EMANATED FROM THE ASSESSEE S O THAT IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE'S OWN MONEY WAS BROUGHT B ACK IN THE GUISE OF LOAN. THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A CASE WHERE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS AND THE GENUINE NESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED 11 LOANS COULD BE CALLED IN QUESTION. 5.13 IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE AP PELLANT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PROVIDE ANY OPPORTUNITY T O IT FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE CASH CREDITORS IN RESPECT OF WHO M THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION REND ERED. DESPITE ORAL AND WRITTEN REQUESTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER REF USED TO RESPOND AND DID NOT ALLOW THIS VERY VITAL OPPORTUNITY OF C ROSS EXAMINATION. IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE INFORMATI ON GATHERED 10 BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE USED AGAI NST HIM UNLESS UNTIL AN OPPORTUNITY OF REBUTTING THE SAME IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. REL IANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF PR AKASH CHAND NAHTA V. UNION OF INDIA [2001] 247 ITR 274 IN SUPPO RT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS I S MUST, BEFORE THE A.O. RELIES ON THE STATEMENT OF THE WITNESS FOR MAKING ADDITION. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION O F THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I.E. DELHI HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND VIJAY GUPTA( 2008) 303 ITR 95(DELHI) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON MERE ADVERSE STATEMENTS FROM OTH ERS. SUCH STATEMENT BY ITSELF DOES NOT CONSTITUTE 'INFORMATIO N, UNLESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ENQUIRIES THEREON AND IN FERRED UNDERSTATEMENT OF INCOME, I AM THEREFORE INCLINED T O AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT TO THE EFFECT THAT STATEMENT RECORDED BEHIND BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WITH OUT BEING SUBJECTED TO CROSS-EXAMINATION CANNOT BE FULLY ADMI TTED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5.14 IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,74,00,000 /- FROM THE ELEVEN(11) LOAN CREDITORS LISTED IN PARA 5.1 0 ABOV E. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,74,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF U NSECURED LOANS FROM THE ELEVEN(11) LOAN CREDITORS IS DELETED. 11 5.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.6.2019 OF THE LD. CIT(A), AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AND DELETED THE ADDITION, AFTER ELABORATELY DISCUSSING THE DETAILED EVIDENCES AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND TH E JUDGMENT/DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, WE ARE FULLY AGREE WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT( A) PASSED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE I S CALLED FOR IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDING LY, WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND ACCORDI NGLY REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 11.02.2020. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SRB DATE: 11.02.2020 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES