Shri Amit Rameshbhai Jain, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-5(1), Surat

ITA 4141/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6314 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Period of limitation; Condonation of delay
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. N. PAHUJA, AM) ITA NO.4141/AHD/2008 A. Y.: 2005-06 SHRI AMIT RAMESHCHAND JAIN, 104,BALAJI PARK SOCIETY, DUMBHAL, SURAT VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -5 (1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT PA NO. AFXPJ 4472 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI A.K. PATEL, DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)- I II, SURAT DATED 06 TH OCTOBER, 2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. ACCORDING TO COLUMN NO.9 OF THE APPEAL PAPERS, 2 6-10-2008 IS MENTIONED AS DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF THE ORDER APP EALED AGAINST. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL IS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE T RIBUNAL ON 29-12-2008.THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 4 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY STATING THEREI N THAT HE WAS SUFFERING FROM ILLNESS DURING THE PERIOD FROM 17 TH DECEMBER, 2008 TO 29 TH DECEMBER, 2008; THEREFORE, DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE AND AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE I S FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE AVERMENTS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION. THE ASS ESSEE PRAYED THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. THE LEARNED DR HAS NO OB JECTION IF THE ITA NO.4141/AHD/2008 SHRI AMIT RAMESHCHAND JAIN VS ITO, WARD -5(1,) SURA T 2 DELAY IS CONDONED IN FILING THE APPEAL. CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THERE IS NOMINAL DELAY IN FIL ING THE APPEAL AND FURTHER THAT THE LEARNED DR HAS NO OBJECTION FOR CO NDONATION OF DELAY IN PREFERRING THE APPEAL, WE ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE DELAY I S ACCORDINGLY CONDONED. 3. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.2,87,275/- U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INTRODUCED CAPITAL OF RS.2,66,000/- DURING THE YEAR AND WHEN REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE THEREOF, IT WAS STAT ED THAT THIS WAS THE OPENING CAPITAL AND THE SOURCE THEREOF WAS AMOUNT A CCUMULATED OUT OF GIFTS AND TUITION INCOME DURING THE PERIOD 2001 TO 2005 (RS.87,275), TWO GIFTS OF RS.50,000/- EACH RECEIVED FROM MATERNAL GRAND MOTHER IN THE YEAR 2002 AND 2003, TWO GIFTS O F RS.50,000/- EACH RECEIVED FROM MATERNAL UNCLE IN 2002 AND 2003. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE GIFT DECLARATION PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BEAR THE DATE OF ISSUE OF STAMP PAPERS AND THE ORIG INAL PAPER WAS NOT FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN AFTER ISSUE OF SPECIFIC SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THE AO, THEREFORE, WAS OF THE VI EW THAT SINCE NO INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED, RS.87,275/- CLAIMED AS A CCUMULATED GIFTS WAS UNEXPLAINED MONEY INTRODUCED IN THE BUSINESS, N O DETAILS OF THE MATERNAL GRAND MOTHER AND UNCLE WERE FURNISHED REGA RDING THEIR FINANCIAL CAPACITY AND THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF GIFT S WERE ALSO WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HE, THEREFORE, TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT S UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. BEFORE THE LEARNE D CIT(A) THE LEARNED ITA NO.4141/AHD/2008 SHRI AMIT RAMESHCHAND JAIN VS ITO, WARD -5(1,) SURA T 3 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS RUNNING A BUSINESS SINCE LONG BUT DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME AS HE DID NOT HAVE TAXABLE INCOME, BUT A SUM OF RS.87,275/- WAS A CCUMULATED OUT OF PETTY GIFTS AND TUITION INCOME IN A PERIOD OF FO UR TO FIVE YEARS. FURTHER, THE AMOUNT OF GIFTS FROM THE OTHER TWO REL ATIVES WAS IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIE D ON THE DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF RADHAKRISHNAN D ISTRIBUTORS IN ITA NO.1418/DEL/1991, DATED 07-02-1996 IN SUPPORT OF HI S CLAIM THAT WHEN A SUM CREDITED WAS AVAILABLE IN A YEAR DIFFERE NT FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS CREDITED HAD TO BE ASSESSED IN THE YEA R IN WHICH IT WAS FOUND TO BE AVAILABLE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT SINCE THE GIFTS AND THE ACCUMULATED SAVINGS PERTAINED TO EARLIER YEARS, NO ADDITION IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. HIS FINDINGS ARE R EPRODUCED AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. AR. IN THE D ECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, DELHI (SUPRA) THE APPELLANT HAD RE CEIVED GIFTS FROM CLOSE RELATIVES WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN AN EARLIER YEAR BUT THE SAME WAS BR OUGHT INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL . HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS NO EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SO CALLED GIFTS WERE RECEIVED IN AN EARLIER YEAR OR THE ACCUMULATED SAVI NGS AND TUITION INCOME PERTAINED TO AN EARLIER YEAR SIN CE THERE IS NO ENTRY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OR ANY OTHER BOOKS TO ESTABLISH THIS CONTENTION. HERE IS A CASE WHERE A S UM OF RS.2,87,275/- HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF ITA NO.4141/AHD/2008 SHRI AMIT RAMESHCHAND JAIN VS ITO, WARD -5(1,) SURA T 4 ACCOUNTS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OR EVEN THE IDENTITY OF THE SO CALLED DONOR IS NOT ESTABLISHED AS ALSO THE FACT OF RECEIVING THE SO CALLED GIFT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS DOING ANY BUSINESS AS CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER YEARS FROM WHICH HE COULD ACCUMULATE SAVING S WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. SINCE THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS HA S NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE A CT ARE CLEARLY ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. ADDITION ON THIS AC COUNT IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EVIDENCE FOR ACCUMULATION OUT O F PETTY GIFTS AND TUITION INCOME. AS REGARDS OTHER GIFTS, HE HAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE AO COULD HAVE SUMMONED THE DONORS FOR EXAMINING BEFORE HIM; THEREFORE, ADDITION IS CLEARLY UNJUSTIFIED. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE GIFTS WERE RECEIVED IN EARLIER YEARS, THEREFO RE, ADDITION IF ANY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE EARLIER PRECEDIN G ASSESSMENT YEARS IN WHICH GIFTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INTROD UCTION OF THE CAPITAL. THEREFORE, ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED. 6. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AO ON GOING THROUGH THE AUD IT REPORT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED CAPITAL OF RS.2,66,000/ -. THE SOURCE OF INTRODUCTION OF THE CAPITAL WAS CALLED FOR TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED TO BE OUT OF PETTY GIFTS AND TUITION INCO ME FOR WHICH NO ITA NO.4141/AHD/2008 SHRI AMIT RAMESHCHAND JAIN VS ITO, WARD -5(1,) SURA T 5 EVIDENCE WAS FILED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE T HE LEARNED CIT(A). FURTHER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMIT TED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE SUCH SOURCE. AS REGARDS OTHER SOURCE FOR INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL I.E. GIFTS RECEIVED FROM MATERNAL GRAND MOTHER AND MATERNAL UNCLE, ONLY COPY OF DECLARATION OF GIFTS WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO ON WHICH EVEN ON T HE STAMP PAPERS DATE OF ISSUE WAS NOT MENTIONED. FURTHER, THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ORIGINAL GIFT DECLARATION BEFORE THE AO FO R VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THIS ISSU E BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. THE AO, THEREFORE, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUC E ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING IDENTITY OF THE DONORS, THEIR CREDITWORTH INESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS IN THE MATTER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE GIFT DECLARATION BEFORE THE AO; THEREFORE, INITIAL ONUS UPON THE ASSESSEE IS DISCHARGED TO PROVE GENUINE CREDITS. WE DO NOT A GREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DETAILS DESPITE GIVING SPECIFIC SH OW CAUSE NOTICE TO HIM. ONLY COPY OF THE GIFT DECLARATION WAS FILED WH ICH WAS ALSO NOT FOUND CORRECT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE T HE IDENTITY OF THE DONORS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AS WELL AS GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE STA TED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE GIFTS IN THE EARLIER YEARS, BUT THE AS SESSEE INTRODUCED THE CAPITAL OF RS.2,66,000/- IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELE VANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. THEREFORE, UNEXPLAINED INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL SHALL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR UNDER ITA NO.4141/AHD/2008 SHRI AMIT RAMESHCHAND JAIN VS ITO, WARD -5(1,) SURA T 6 APPEAL. THE SOURCE MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN EARLIER YEAR, BUT BURDEN IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT SOURCE OF INTROD UCTION OF THE CAPITAL WAS GENUINE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED T O PROVE THE SOURCE OF INTRODUCTION OF THE CAPITAL IN THE ASSESS MENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, AS SUCH MERELY BECAUSE GIFTS WERE TAKEN IN EARLIER YEARS WOULD NOT BE A GROUND TO DELETE THE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CORRECTLY NOT ED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO ESTA BLISH THAT SO- CALLED GIFTS WERE RECEIVED IN THE EARLIER YEARS BEC AUSE THERE WAS NO ENTRY IN ANY BANK ACCOUNT OR ANY OTHER BOOKS TO EST ABLISH THIS CONTENTION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT SINCE RS.2,87,275/- HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH IS NOT EXPLAINED AT ALL, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF INTRODUCTION OF THE CAPITAL. SAME IS THE POSITION B EFORE US, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY MATERIALS OR EVID ENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . EVEN COPIES OF THE DECLARATION OF THE GIFTS HAVE NOT BEEN FILED BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RE CORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE CONFIRM THEIR FINDINGS AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING ADDITIO N OF RS.1,70,000/- U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.77,588/- FROM SACHIN JAIN AND RS.55,000/- FROM VARUN JAIN. WHEN REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THESE CREDITS, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHE D CONTRA ACCOUNTS OF THESE PERSONS BUT IDENTITY OR CREDITWOR THINESS OF THESE ITA NO.4141/AHD/2008 SHRI AMIT RAMESHCHAND JAIN VS ITO, WARD -5(1,) SURA T 7 PERSONS WERE NOT ESTABLISHED. THE AO FURTHER FOUND THAT IN THE CASE OF VARUN JAIN, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.1,15,000/- ON 15-06-2004 AND RETURNED BACK RS.37,412/- IN MARCH, 2005. SINCE NO EVIDENCE WAS FORTHCOMING, THE AO TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT A S UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CONFIRMATION AND COPY OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE GEN UINE LOANS TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OTHER EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH HIM. 8. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE. HIS FINDINGS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT FUR NISH ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDI TS BEFORE THE AO NOR ANY EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BEFORE ME, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SAID CASH CRED ITS ARE NOON GENUINE AND IT WAS APPELLANTS OWN UNEXPLAINED MONEY WHICH WAS INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . THE ADDITION THEREFORE IS CONFIRMED. 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CONFIRMATION AND COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF BOTH THE CREDITORS BEFORE THE AO, THEREFORE, INI TIAL ONUS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE GENUINE CREDITS HAVE BEEN DISCHAR GED. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT FILING OF THE CONTRA ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES WOULD AMOUNT TO FILING OF CONFIRMATION. ITA NO.4141/AHD/2008 SHRI AMIT RAMESHCHAND JAIN VS ITO, WARD -5(1,) SURA T 8 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO GAVE SP ECIFIC NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT S IN THE MATTER. THE AO ON GOING THROUGH THE CONFIRMATION FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED CONTRA ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF THE PARTIES WHICH CREATES DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED CONFIRMATION WITHO UT OBTAINING SIGNATURES OF THE CREDITORS AND SIGNED CONFIRMATION AT HIS OWN, THEREFORE, LOANS SHOWN IN THE NAME OF ABOVE TWO PAR TIES ARE BOGUS. THE LEARNED DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO PROVE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR CREDITWORTHI NESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS RIGHTL Y MADE IN THE MATTER. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE COPY OF ANY BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AO. 11. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT BURDEN IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE IDENTITY OF TH E CREDITORS, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THEIR CREDITWOR THINESS. THE AO FOUND ON GOING THROUGH THE CONFIRMATIONS THAT THE A SSESSEE PRODUCED CONTRA ACCOUNTS WHICH CREATE A DOUBT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS PRODUCED CONFIRMATIONS WITHOUT OBTAINING SIGNATURES OF THE CREDITORS. THE AO DID NOT MENTION ANYWHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER IF THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITO RS. THE AO GAVE SPECIFIC NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE ALL THE AB OVE THREE CONDITIONS OF GENUINE CREDITS, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUC ED ANY DETAILS OR MATERIALS BEFORE THE AO. THE ABOVE FACTS WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE CREDITOR S BEFORE THE AO. IT ITA NO.4141/AHD/2008 SHRI AMIT RAMESHCHAND JAIN VS ITO, WARD -5(1,) SURA T 9 WAS MERELY A CONTRA ACCOUNT WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN S IGNED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT OBTAINING SIGNATURES OF THE CREDIT ORS. WHEN A DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BEE N EXPRESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE PROD UCED THE CONFIRMATION AND BANK ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE LEARNED C IT(A). HOWEVER, NOTHING WAS DONE IN THIS REGARD, BECAUSE THE LEARNE D CIT(A) NOT4ED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFO RE HIM ON THIS GROUND. SAME IS THE POSITION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BE CAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL I N SUPPORT OF THIS GROUND AND EVEN NO COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION OR COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN FILED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDE NCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD BEFORE US, THE FINDINGS OF THE AO HAVE NOT B EEN REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ANY EVIDENCE OF MATERIAL. THUS , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDIT ORS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT IN THE SPECIFIC SHOW CA USE NOTICE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, THE AO SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS OF BANK PASS BOOK OF BOTH THE CREDI TORS. EVEN IN RESPONSE TO THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT PRODUCE ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS OF PROVIN G GENUINE CREDIT IN THE MATTER. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT. TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NO.4141/AHD/2008 SHRI AMIT RAMESHCHAND JAIN VS ITO, WARD -5(1,) SURA T 10 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24-06-2011 SD/- SD/- (A. N. PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 24-06-2011 LAKSHMIKANT/ LAKSHMIKANT/ LAKSHMIKANT/ LAKSHMIKANT/- -- - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD