SHRI SHIVPRASAD BINDESHSHWARI DUBEY, Nagpur V. I.T.O. WARD -2(1), Nagpur

ITA 434/NAG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7688 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A R NINAWE
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 234B; 69

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 434/NAG/2016. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (S.M.C.) I.T.A. NO. 434/NAG/2016. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12. SHRI SHIVPRASAD BINDESHWARI DUBEY, THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, NAGPUR. VS. WARD - 2(1), NAGPUR. PAN A LJPD6191P. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.P. DEWANI. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.R. NINAWE. DATE OF HEARING : 0 8 - 12 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 2 T H JANUARY, 2017. O R D E R. T HIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) - II, NAGPUR DATED 23/3/2016 AND P ERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. THE HONBLE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED I CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.26,50,000/ - U/S 69 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. AT RS.26,50,000/ - U/S 69 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 3. THE ASSESSEE DENIES LIABILITIES TO BE ASSESSED TO INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF I.T. ACT, 1961. WITHOUT PREJUDICE LEY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER : I N THIS CASE THE A SSESSING O FFICER MADE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNSUBSTANT IATED CREDITS . THE AO NOTED THAT VARIOUS CREDITS ARE APPEARING IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT A GIFT AMOUNTING 2 ITA NO. 434/NAG/2016. TO RS.3,50,000 / - HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ONE SHRI RAMMILAN DIVEDI WHO IS HUSBAND OF ASSES SEES SISTER. THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI RAMMILAN DIVEDI. VARIOUS EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO . THE AO, HOWEVER, WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SAME AND ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,50,000/ - TO T HE INCOME OF HE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,50,000/ - IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEES WIFE WHO HAD SOLD SOME JEWELLERY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO, HOWEVER, WAS NOT SATI SFIED BY THE SAID EXPLANATION AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.17,50,000/ - HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM ONE GANPATHI TRADERS ON 31 - 01 - 2011. HOWEVER, INSPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES BEING G IVEN REQUIRING SUBMISSION OF FURTHER DETAILS OF THE SAID GANPATHI TRADERS, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,50,000/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. UPON ASSESSEE'S APPEAL L EARNED CIT(APPE ALS) ALSO OBTAINED REMAND REPORT FROM THE A SSESSING O FFICER. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CONF I RMED ALL THE ADDITIONS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER. A PROPOS ADDITION OF RS. 3, 50, 000 / - . 4 . 5 I HAV E CO N S ID E R E D TH E FACTS OF TH E CASE A N E! S UBMI SS I O N S OF TH E A P PEL L AN T . I T I S E VI DENT FROM TH E VARIOU S EV I DENCES BRO U GHT ON R E CORD THAT SHRI RAMMILAN DIVEDI I S A MAN OF MEAGRE MEAN S AND COU L D NOT HAVE G I VEN A GIF T OF S U CH MAGNI T UDE TO THE AP P EL L ANT . SHRI . RAMMILAN DIV E DI IS A RETIRED PERSON WHO OBTAINED TOTAL RE T IREMENT BENEFITS OF ABOUT R S . 5 LAKHS AND PRESENTLY DRAWS MONTH L Y PENSION OF RS . 6000/ - ONLY. HIS BANK BALANCE AS PE R TH E DETAIL S FURNISH E D BY THE LE!. AO IS VERY MEAGRE AND IN TH E RANGE OF FE W THOUSANDS ONLY. HIS ENTIRE MONTHLY PENSION IS BEING REGULAR LY WITHDRAWN FOR H O US E HOLD E X PENSES WHICH S HOWS THAT H E HA S NO OTHER FUNDS OR SOURCES OF INCOM E. IN SUCH SETS OF CI R CUMSTANC ES , IT IS IN C ONC E IVABLE THAT SUCH A PERSON W OULD GIVE A GIFT AMOUNTING TO RS . 3,50,000/ - TO THE APPELLANT . NO EVIDENCE OF OWNER S H IP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED . THE GIFT T HA T HA S BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPE L LANT I S SHOWN TO B E IN CA S H . ON THE DATE OF G IF T OR IMMEDIATE L Y BE F ORE TH E SAME, THERE ARE NO WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHR I . RAMMILAN DIVE D I . EVEN IN R ESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF AG R IC ULT URA L INCOME O F RS. 40,000/ - NO EVID E NCE W H A T SOEVER HAS B EE N F U R NI S H ED . 3 ITA NO. 434/NAG/2016. 4. 6 CON S ID E RIN G TH E ABOVE SET OF FACTS I T IS EVIDENT THAT SHRI RAMMILAN DIVEDI IS NOT A MAN O F ME A GRE M E AN S AND HIS CRED I TWORTHINE SS HAS NOT B E EN ES T A BLI S HED AT ALL. MOREOVER A S STATED AB O V E , TH E GIV E N TRAN S ACTION I S N O T THROUGH BANKING CH A NNELS AN D I S CL A IM E D TO HAVE B EE N M A D E I N C ASH . IN VIE W OF A B OV E FACT S TH E ADDITI O N O F RS. 3,50 , 000/ - U/S . 69 IS HEREBY CON FIRMED . A PROPOS ADDITION OF RS. 5 , 50 , 000 / - . 4 . 9 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FAC T S OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPE LL ANT . I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE BILLS ISSUED BY M/S. JAIN JEWELLERS IN COMPLIANCE TO THE LETTER OF THE LD . AO. WHILE THE SAID M/S. JA I N JEWE LL ERS H AS CONFIRMED THE SAID TRANSACTION, HOWEVER THERE ARE VARIOUS I S SUES IN RESPECT OF THE CONFIRMATION WHICH STILL REMAINS UNRESOLVED. THE SAID PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY FROM M/S JA I N JEWE L LERS IS CLAIMED TO BE IN CASH . SUCH A TRANSACTION IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE A S NO BUSINESSMAN WILL CARRY OUT THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION ON STOCK IN TR - ADE IN J CASH. FURTHER PERUSAL OF THE BILL ITSELF SHOWS THAT THERE IS N O DESCRIPTION WHATSOEVER OF THE NATURE OF JEWELLERY SOLD BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS MERELY S TATED 19 TOLAS AND RATE PER TOLA IS MEN T IONED AT RS. 280001 - RESULTING IN TOTAL BILLS OF RS. 5 ,32,0001 - . IT IS MER E LY MENTIONED AS SA L E OF GO L D WITH ITEMS 1 . HAAR, 2 . MANGALSUTRA A ND 3 . NAGCHUDI . THERE IS NO DESCR I PTION OF NATURE OF THE ABOVE ITEMS AND NO INDIV I DUAL W EIGHT OR PURITY OF GOLD I S MENTIONED IN THE BILL. MOREOVER THE BILL HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THE S TANDARD CA S H MEMO OF MLS JAIN JEWELLERS WHICH IS NORMA L LY USED ONLY IN RESPECT OF SALES. THU S TH E APPE LL ANT HA S FAILED TO GIVE PROPER EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT THE S ALE OF JEW E L LERY MAD E BY IT TO MLS JAIN JEWELLER . 4.10 FURTHER - WHEN ENQUIRY WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE LD. AO AND HE REQUIRED THE SAID MLS JAIN JEWELLERS TO PRODUCE HIS CASH BOOKS SO AS TO CHECK THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH BALANCE ON THE DAT E OF TRANSACTION , IT IS MERE L Y STATED BY MLS JAIN JEWELLERS THAT CASH BOOK OF THE SAID PERIOD I S MISPLACED. THUS THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO SOURCE OF CASH REMAINS UNEXPLAIN E D AND IN SUCH FACTS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. A O O F RS . 5,50,0001 - I S H EREBY C O NF I RM E D. A PROPO S ADDITION OF RS. 17, 50,000. 4.13 I HAVE CONS I DERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT . THE ONUS IS ON THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND TO ALSO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EVEN FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION OR PAN OF THE SAID GANPATHI TRADERS OR OF ITS PROPRIETOR S HRI SUNIL KOLHE. THE PAN IS THE MOST BASIC PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT CAN BECOME A STARTING POINT OF ANY VERIFICATION AT THE END OF THE ID . AO. EVEN THE PAN HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED IN THIS CASE. THE 1. V ER I F ICATION AT THE E ND OF THE ID. AO. EV E N THE PAN H AS NOT B EE N F U RN I S H E D IN T HIS C A SE. THE LD . AO, DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, HAD ISSUED A LETTER AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE B ANK STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE APPEL L ANT WHICH IS AS UNDER - MR . SUNIL MURLIDHAR KOLHE PROP . GANPATHI TRADERS, FLAT NO . 04, UTTAM PARK, NEAR YASHWANT NAGARNASHIK - 422001. ! 4 .1 4 THE SAID ADDRESS APPEARS ON THE BA N K STATEMENT WH I CH WAS FURNISHED BY T HE APPEL L ANT AND I S CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT TO BE OF GANPAT H I TRADERS. NOTICES U/S. 13 3(6) WAS ISSUED BY THE LD. AO AT THE SAID ADDRESS AND THE SAME HAS COME BACK , UNSE R VED AS THERE I S NO SUCH PARTY ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS . ' 4 ITA NO. 434/NAG/2016. 4 .15 ALSO THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPE LL ANT THAT THE LD . AO OUGHT TO ' HAV E VERIFIED THE PRESENT ADDRESS OF THE PARTY BY ISSUING THE COMMISSION TO THE NASHIK INCOM E TA X OFFICE . SUCH A CONTENTION OF THE APPEL L ANT IS MISPLACED FOR VARIOUS R EA S ONS . FIRSTLY THE ONUS I S ON THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF LEND E R. TH E APPEL L ANT CANNOT GIVE VAGUE REASONS OF 'STRAINED' RE L ATIONSHIP TO SHIFT THE ONU S ON THE DEPARTM E NT . THE REASON REMAINS UNS U BSTAT I ATED AND IS A SELF SERVING ASSERTION AT THE END OF THE APPELLANT. SECO ND L Y THE APPEL L ANT HAS SUBMITTED ONE COPY OF B A NK STATEMENTS WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE OF GANAPATHI TRADERS. THO U GH THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT HE HAS GOT IT FROM THE BANK, THE SAME IS HIGHLY IMPROBAB L E AS BANKERS DO NOT PROVIDE BANK S TATEMENT OF THEIR CUSTOMERS TO UNK NOWN RANDOM INDIVIDUA L S. IN VIEW OF THE SAM E NO RELIABILITY OR CRED I BILITY CAN BE ATTACHED TO TH E BANK STATEMENT SUBM I TTED BY THE APPELLANT . TH E D E PARTMENT CANNOT START CARRYING OUT ENQUIRIES ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS S UBMITTED WHICH TH E M S E L VES LACK CRE DIB I LITY. T HIR D L Y THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPE L LANT THAT IT H AS STRAINED RELATION WITH THE SAID LEN D ER. THE APPE LL ANT CLAIMS TO HAVE BORROWED THE HUGE AMOUNT OF RS . 17,50,000/ - FROM THE SAID PERSON. AS CLARIFIED BY THE APPE LL ANT, THE SA I D AMOUNT STI L L REMAINS UNPAID. A L SO THE APPEL L ANT HAS NOT BEEN P A YING ANY INT E RE S T ON THE SAID BORROWINGS TO SHRI SUNIL KOLHE. IN SUCH FACTS, IT I S R E ASONABLE TO ACC E PT THAT THE SAID SHRI SUNIL KO L HE WOULD BE CONTINUOUSLY AFTER THE APPELLANT TO RECOV E R HIS AMOUNT WITH OR WITHOUT INTEREST . IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT IT HAS STRAINED RELATION WITH THE SAID PARTY AND HENCE CANNOT GIVE ANY DETAIL RELATED TO HIM. SUCH AN EXPLANATION OF THE APPE L LANT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THE APPE LLANT CANNOT SHIFT HIS PRIMARY ONUS ON THE DEPARTMENT. 4 . 16 THUS THE APPE L LANT HAS FAILED TO FILE EVEN THE MOST BASIC DETAILS INCLUDING PAN AND CONFIRMATIONS OF THE SAID PARTY . SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS MO S T BASIC ONUS AS D I S CU S SED ABOVE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 17,50,000/ - IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 4. A GAINST ABOVE ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS . T HE SUBMISSION OF THE L EARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUMMARISED AS UNDER : I. GIFT OF RS.3,50,000/ - FROM SHRI RAMMILAN DWIVEDI. A) ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED GIFT DEED FOR SUM OF RS.3,50.000/ - BEFORE A.O. AND GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT DEED IS NOT IN DISPUTE. B) THE DONOR IS AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS AND HAD RECEIVED PENSIONER BENEFIT FROM MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVT. OF INDIA. THE EVIDENCE OF WHICH WAS PLACED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE BANK PASS BOOK OF DONOR WAS PLACED ON RECORD WHICH INDICATED THAT THERE WERE CASH WITHDRAWAL OF MORE THAN RS.4,00,000/ - IN THE IMMEDIATE PAST. THE DONOR IS AGRICULTURIST AND HOLDING AGRICULTURAL LANDS WAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD. THE DONOR HAS DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS CONFIRMED THE AMOUNT OF 5 ITA NO. 434/NAG/2016. GIFT GIVEN TO ASSESSEE WHICH SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE THE AVAILABILITY OF CAPITAL TO GIVE GIFT. THE LEGAL EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD BY DONOR HAS NOT BEEN FAULTED. C) THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THE GENUINENESS OF GIFT DEED AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF DONOR. D) ON ABOVE DISPUTED FACTUAL POSITION THERE IS NO CASE TO DISBELIEVE AND MAKE ADDITION AT THE HAND S OF ASSESSEE. E) THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT SSSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF DONOR. IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF SOURCE. RELIANCE ON I) 245 ITR 160 (M.P.) CIT VS. METACHEM INDUSTRIES. II. GIFT OF RS.3,50,000 RECEIVED FROM SMT. SANGITA DUBEY. A) IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS A.O. HAS VERIFIED THE SOURCE OF GIF EXPLAINED BY DONOR. JEWELLER HAD CONFIRMED TO A.O. THAT JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED FROM SMT. SANGITA DUBEY ON MAKING CASH PAYMENT. THE SOURCE OF DONOR STANDS EXPLAINED. B) DONOR IS INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND IS SUBMITTING RETURNS WITH DEPARTMENT. C) THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THE GENUINENESS OF GIFT DEED AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF DONOR. D) ON ABOVE DISPUTED FACTUAL POSITION THERE IS NO CASE TO DISBELIEVE AND MAKE ADDITION AT THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. E) THE A.O. HAS OBSE3RVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF DONOR. IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT ASSESSEE CANNO T BE CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF SOURCE. 6 ITA NO. 434/NAG/2016. RELIANCE ON I) 245 ITR 160 (M.P.) CIT VS. METACHEM INDUSTRIES. III. CREDIT OF RS.17,50,000/ - FROM M/S GANPATHI TRADERS. A) THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN BNK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE IS THROUGH TRANSFER FROM BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S GANPATHI TRADERS OF NASHIK. THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SUCH PARTY PLACED ON RECORD CORROBORATES THE CREDIT IN BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. THE DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT CAN NO LONGER REMAINED UNEXPLAINED IN ORDER TO INVOKE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 69 TO MAKE A DDITION AT THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. B) THE BANK STATEMENT OF CREDITOR DISCHARGES THE ONUS LAY ON ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN TH DEPOSIT BY BANK ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. IS UNJUSTIFIED. C) THE PERUSAL OF BANK STATEMENT OF M/S GANPATHI TRADERS DEMONSTRATES THAT MONEY IS FLOWN FROM ITS BANK ACCOUNT TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. THE GENUINENESS AND BONA FIDE OF TRANSACTION THUS STANDS SUBSTANTIATED AND CORROBORATES BY LEGAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD. D) THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT BECAUSE OF STR AINED RELATION ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO OBAIN CONFIRMATION. AS IT IS BANK TRANSFER A.O. MAY INVOKE POWES AND MACHINERY TO VERIFY THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE. IV PROVISIONS OF SEC. 69 ARE NOT MANDATORY. RELIANCE ON : I) 237 ITR 570 CIT VS. SMT. P.K. NOORJAHAN. 7 ITA NO. 434/NAG/2016. 6. P ER CONTRA L EARNED D EPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.3 , 50,000 / - I FIND THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE DONOR WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE AMOUNT AS HE WAS NOT A MAN OF SUBSTANTIAL MEANS. THE PERSON CONCERNED IS AGED 65 YEARS AND HAS RECEIVED PENSIONER BENEFITS FROM THE GOVERNMENT. THE PERSON IS ALSO AN AGRICULTURALIST. THE AMOUNT GIVEN IS NOT A LARGE ONE. HIS PASS BOOK ALSO SHOWS TRANSACTIONS OF WITHDRAWAL OF MORE THAN RS. 4 LACK IN THE PAST. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT PERSON OF SMALLE R INCOME CANNOT MAKE SOME SAVINGS OVER A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME. I FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGE D HIS O NUS IN PROVING THIS CREDIT. ACCORDINGLY I S ET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE. 8. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,50 , 000 / - I FIND THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE REJECTED THE SALE EVEN AFTER IT WAS CONF I RMED BY THE JEWELLER. THE REASONS ATTRIBUTED FOR DISBELIEVING THE JEWELLER CERTIFICATE WOULD BE REASON TO TAKE ACTION IN THE JEWELLER'S HAND AND NOT DISBELIEVING THE ASSESSEE S CLAI M. HENCE I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY I DIRECT THAT THIS ADDITION BE DELETED. 9. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS. 17 , 50 , 000 / - I FIND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM M/S G ANPAT HI T RADERS. THI S HAS BEEN D ISBELIEVED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT. THE ADDRESS OF THE PARTY HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE REJECTED ASSESSEE S REQUEST THAT THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTY IS RESTRAINED AND HENCE COMMISSION MAY BE ISSUED. I FIND THAT THIS ACTION OF THE R EVENUE AUTHORITIES IS NOT APPROPRIATE. THE SAID PARY IS AN OUTSIDE PARTY. ITS ADDRESS HAS BEEN DULY GIVEN. THE AMOUNT GIVEN IS R EFLECTED IN THE BA N K STATEMENT. HENCE IT 8 ITA NO. 434/NAG/2016. WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO ISSUE COMMISSION TO THE SAID PARTY. ACCORDINGLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE I REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING O FFICER. THE A SSESSING O FFICER IS DIRECTED TO C ONSIDER THE ISSUE A FRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD 10. I N THE RESULT THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 1 2 T H DAY OF JANUARY., 2017. S D / - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. NAGPUR, DATED: 1 2 T H JANUARY, 2017. COPY FORWARDED TO : 2. SHRI SHIVPRASAD BINDESHWARI DUBEY, FLAT NO. 1, PLOT NO. 166, KANCHAN VIMAL APT. OPP. SHIVAJI PARK, SHIVAJI NAGAR, NAGPUR. 3. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1) , NAGPUR. 4. PR. C.I.T. - II, NAGPUR. 5. CIT(APPEALS), - I I, NAGPUR. 6. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 7. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WAKODE.