LILADHAR RAVJI MAJETHIA/THAKKAR, MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3) , MUMBAI

ITA 4396/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8100 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PTB
• Assessee Lawyers: RITIKA AGARWAL MS N HEMALATHA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Source of fund; Onus to prove
• Section: 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 4396/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 ) LILADHAR R. MAJETHIA, 7, PATHAI NIWAS, N. S. ROAD, MULUND (W), MUMBAI - 400 080 / VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), ROOM NO. 905, PRATISHTHA BHAWAN, OLD CGO BUILDING, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GI R NO. ABYPT 7683 B ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. RITIKA AGARWAL / RESPONDENT BY : MS. N. HEMALATHA / DATE OF HEARING : 10.10.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.12 .2017 / O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA , A. M.: T HIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 47, MUMBAI D ATED 28.02.2017 A ND PERTAINS TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 20 12 - 13. 2. T HE GROUND OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. BECAUSE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOANS FROM FOUR PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS.15,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT 2 ITA NO. 4396/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) LILADHAR R. MAJETHIA VS. D CIT ON THE BASIS THAT THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT PROVED IGNORING THE PLETHORA OF EVIDENCES ON RECORD. 2. BECAUSE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT WERE NOT RELEVANT, ON INSUBSTANTIAL BASIS. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS THE PROPRIETOR OF TWO CONCERNS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN UNSECURED LOANS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 133(6) TO SOME OF THESE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION. THEREAFTER, ON THE BASIS OF THE REPLIES RECEIVED FROM THESE LENDERS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 24.03.2014 TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY UNSECURED LOANS FROM SHRI DHEERAJ M. NAGDA (HUF), SHRI VIRENDRA MANILAL GANDH I, SHRI HARESH DEVA RAVARIYA AND SMT. RIA RITESH CHEDDA SHOULD NOT BE ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.68 OF THE ACT SINCE THE CAPACITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS ITSELF WAS DOUBTFUL IN SOME CASES. AS REGARDS UNSECURED LOAN OF R S.3,50, 000 / - FROM SHRI DHEERAJ M. NAGDA (HUF), IT WAS OBSERVED THA T THE RETURNED INCOME WAS ONLY RS.1,35,580/ - WHICH DID NOT JUSTIFY THE CAPACITY OF THE LENDER TO ADVANCE LOAN OF RS.3,50,000/ - . A PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNT REVEALED THAT THERE WAS DEPOSIT OF S IMILAR AMOUNT JUST BEFORE THE ISSUE OF CHEQUE TO THE APPELLANT ON THE SAME DAY, OTHERWISE BALANCES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE ALWAYS IN RS.1000S . THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS FOUND TO BE REPLETE WITH SUCH TRANSACTIONS WHICH INDICATED THAT THIS ACCOUNT WAS USED AS A CONDUIT FOR GIVING ENTRIES OF LOAN. THIS PROVED THE FACT THAT THE SAID LENDER DID NOT HAVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY OR CREDITWORTHINESS TO MAKE THE SAID LOAN. 3 ITA NO. 4396/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) LILADHAR R. MAJETHIA VS. D CIT 4 . WITH REGARD TO LOAN OF RS.5,00,000/ - FROM SHRI HARESH DEVA RAVARIYA, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE RETURNED INCOME WAS ONLY, RS.1,59,000/ - WHICH DID NOT JUSTIFY THE CAPACITY OF THE LENDER TO ADVANCE LOAN OF RS.5,00,000/ - . A PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNT REVEALED THAT THERE WAS DEPOSIT OF THE SIMILAR AMOUNT JUST BEFORE THE ISSUE OF CHEQUE TO THE ASSESSEE AN D OTHERWISE BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS ALWAYS IN RS. 1000 S. ACCORDINGLY SUMMONS U/S.131 WAS ISSUED TO THE SAID LENDER ON 05.03.2015 AT THE SAME ADDRESS AS GIVEN IN THE CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. STRANGELY, THE SUMMONS WAS RETURNED BY THE - POST AL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK 'LEFT'. AS REGARDS THE LOAN OF RS.3,00,000/ - FROM SMT. RIA RITESH CHEDDA, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE LENDER HAD SHOWN RETURNED INCOME OF ONLY RS.1,89,370/ - WHICH DID NOT JUSTIFY THE CAPACITY OF THE LENDER TO ADVANCE LOAN OF RS. 3,00,000/ - . A PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNT REVEALED THAT THERE WAS DEPOSIT OF THE SIMILAR AMOUNT JUST BEFORE THE ISSUE OF CHEQUE TO THE APPELLANT AND OTHERWISE BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS ALWAYS IN RS. 1000 S. AS REGARDS THE LOAN OF RS.3,50,000/ - FROM SHRI VI RENDRA MANILAL GANDHI, NOTICE ISSUED U/S.133(6) WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK 'NOT KNOWN'. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE IDENTITY, CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS OF THIS LOAN REMAINED TO BE PROVED. IN RESPONSE, THE AP PELLANT SUBMITTED HIS REPLY VIDE LETTER FILED ON 30.3.2015 WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN PARA 4.2 OF IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE DID NOT EXERCISE ANY AUTHORITY OR CONTROL OR EVEN NEEDED TO QUESTION THE LENDERS ABOUT THEIR SOURCE OF MONEY. HE ST ATED THAT IT WAS SUFFICIENT FOR HIM AS A BORROWER THAT THE LENDER HAD ADVANCED HIM THE MONEY AS PER CONTRACTUAL TERM ENTERED 4 ITA NO. 4396/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) LILADHAR R. MAJETHIA VS. D CIT INTO BY HIM. THE APPELLANT POINTED OUT THAT HE HAD PAID THEM INTEREST AND DEDUCTED TDS WHEREVER APPLICABLE. THE APPELLA NT ARGUED TH AT THE ONUS TO PROVE SOURCE OF SOURCE COULD NOT BE PUT ON HIM . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BURDEN ON THE APPELLANT GOT DISCHARGED IF HE PROVED THE EXISTENCE OF LENDER, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION WHICH STOOD CONFIRMED IN HIS CASE. 5 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER CO NSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, BUT FOUND THE SAME TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WAS SIMILAR AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT JUST BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF CHEQUES FOR LOANS WHICH INDICATED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE MERELY USED A S CONDUIT FOR ARRANGING LOANS. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE BANK STATEMENTS WERE REPLETE WITH SUCH INSTANCES IN THESE CASES. AS PER COPIES OF IT RETURNS FILED BY THESE LENDERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE INCOME IN SOME CASES WAS EVEN NOT ENOUGH TO MEET HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT INSTEAD OF PROVING CREDITWORTHINESS, COPIES OF IT RETURNS OF THESE PERSONS PROVED OTHERWISE AND INDICATED THAT THESE PERSONS WERE NOT CAPABLE OF GIVING SUCH LOANS. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE LE NDERS HAD SHOWN THE AMOUNT GIVEN AS LOANS IN THEIR BALANCE SHEET AS CAPITAL . IN THE OPINION OF THE AO, THE SANCTITY OF THE BALANCE SHEET WAS NOT KNOWN BECAUSE IT WAS NOT AUDITED AND MOST OF THE CASES HAD NOT BEEN SCRUTINIZED. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT INCO ME OF SOME OF THE LENDERS WAS EVEN BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT AND THUS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES WAS NOT PROVED. IT WAS FOUND 5 ITA NO. 4396/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) LILADHAR R. MAJETHIA VS. D CIT THAT THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS IN THESE BANK ACCOUNTS WAS NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE NATURE, SOURCE AND SIZE OF INCOME OF THESE PERSONS. 6 . FROM THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS WAS PROVED AND THAT THE TRANSACTIONS HAD TAKEN PLACE. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE AQ, IT COULD NOT BE CONCLUSIVELY HELD THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE AND THAT THE LENDERS HAD CREDITWORTHINESS. THUS, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ONUS ON THE APPELLANT DOES NOT GET DISCHARGED MERELY BY FILING SUCH CONFIRMATORY LETTERS AS HELD IN CIT V. UNITED COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CO. P. LTD. 187 ITR 596 (CAL). SIMI LARLY, THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES WAS NOT SACROSANCT AND WILL NOT MAKE A NON - GENUINE TRANSACTION GENUINE, AS POINTED OUT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PRECISION FINANCE PVT. LTD. 2 08 I TR 465 (CAL). HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KORLAY T RAD IN G CO. LTD. 232 ITR 820 (CAL) HAS INTER ALIA OBSER VE D THAT EVEN THE INCOME TAX FILE PARTICULARS WHERE THE CREDITOR IS ASSESSED ARE NOT SUFFICIENT. THE AO ALSO REFERRED TO THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL V. CIT 214 ITR 801, 806, 8 0 8 - 809 (SC) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS RESERVED THAT THE APPARENT MUST BE CONSIDERED REAL UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT MERE ARE REASONS TO DISBELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE REAL AND THAT THE TAXING AUTHORITIES ARE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUND ING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY AND MATTER HAS TO BE CONSIDERED BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE LOANS FROM ABOVE FOUR PARTIES AGGREGATING TO 6 ITA NO. 4396/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) LILADHAR R. MAJETHIA VS. D CIT RS.15,00,000 / - IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD WERE NOT GENUINE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SUM OF RS.15,00,000 TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 7 . UPON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 4.3.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE QUESTION FOR ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/ - U/S.68 OF THE ACT BY TREATING THE UNSECURED LOANS FROM AFORESAID FOUR PARTIES AS NON - GE NUINE. THE FACTS RELATING TO TH IS ADDITION HAVE BEEN BROUGHT OUT IN PARAS 4.1.1 TO 4.1.4 ABOVE AND NEED NO REPETITION. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS.15,00,000/ - SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM AFORESAID FOUR PARTIES AS THE APPELLANT FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS U/S.68 OF PROVING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE GENUINE NESS OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED COPIES OF ACCOUNT CONFIRMATIONS, PAN CARDS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF IT RETURNS AND BANK STATEMENTS OF THE LENDERS BESIDES HIS OWN BANK STATEMENT. IT IS WELL - ESTABLISHED THAT THE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SO AS TO PROVE ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 VIZ. IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS THE FACTS ARE WITHIN THE KNOWLED GE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE EXAMINED NOT SUPERFICIALLY BUT IN DEPTH AND HAVING REGARD TO THE TEST OF THE HUMAN PROBABILITIES AND NORMAL COURSE OF HUMAN CONDUCT. 4.3.2. IT IS NOW PROPOSED TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS O F AFORESAID UNSECURE D LOANS IN LIGHT OF THE LEGAL PROPOSITIONS OR PRINCIPLES ENUMERATED ABOVE. F ROM PERUSAL - OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOANS BASED ON RELEVANT EVIDENC ES/MATERIALS AND SOUND REASONING. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT ALL FOUR PARTIES HAD FILED RETURNS FOR THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOWING INCOME BELOW TAXABLE LIMITS. NOT TO SPEAK OF ADVANCING UNSECURED LOANS RANGING BETWEEN RS.3 LAKHS TO RS.5 LAKHS, THE INCOME RETURNED BY EACH OF THE FOUR PARTIES IS NOT ENOUGH EVEN TO MEET THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET, P & L ACCOUNT AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BY EACH PARTY ALONG WITH HIS/HER RETURN OF INCOME. 7 ITA NO. 4396/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) LILADHAR R. MAJETHIA VS. D CIT T HEREFORE, THE DETAILS OF SOURCES OF INCOME OF THE SAID PARTIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE SO AS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FINANCIAL STANDING OF THE SAID FOUR PARTIES. IT APPEARS THAT COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET, P & L AC COUNT AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE SAID FOUR PARTIES WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO AS EVIDENT FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN PARA - 4.3 ON PAGES 4 AND 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ADDUCE ANY COGENT MATERIAL IN ORDER TO CONTROVERT THE SAID FINDINGS HIGHLIGHTING THE FINANCIAL INCAPACITY OF THE SAID FOUR PARTIES TO ADVANCE UNSECURED LOANS TO THE APPELLANT. THE SAME HOLDS GOOD EVEN IN RESPECT OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID FOUR PARTIES. ON PERUSAL OF RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS, THE AO HAS CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT NO REGULAR OR PERIODIC INCOME WAS CREDITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID FOUR PARTIES. ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT THERE WERE DEPOSITS OF MORE OR LESS EQUIVALENT AMOUNT IN ALL FOUR BANK ACCOUNTS JUST BEFORE ISSUING THE CHEQUES FOR UNSECURED LOANS. IT IS THUS FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AND THE GENUINENESS OF AFORESAID UNSECURED LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS. 15, 00,0007 - DO NOT INSPIRE CONFIDENCE. IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT IN THEIR IT RETURNS, THE SAID FOUR PARTIES HAD SHOWN VERY LOW INCOME IN COMPARISON TO THE UNSECURED LOANS GIVEN WHICH IS NOT WORTHY OF CRE DENCE AT ALL. 4.3.3 AN ANALYSIS OF THE CASE - LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT REVEALS THAT THESE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND NONE OF THESE HELPS TO ADVANCE THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. FOR EXAMPLE, ORIENT TRADING CO. LTD. (SUPRA) IS A CASE DECIDED UNDER THE 1922 ACT HAVING NOTHI NG IN COMMON WITH THE FACTS OF THE RESENT CASE. IN THAT CASE, CERTAIN AMOUNT WAS CREDITED IN BOOKS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE NAME OF ONE 'R'. FACTS REVEALED THAT 'R' WAS A BENAMI OF 'S' AND THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO X S'. EVIDENTLY NO SUCH FACTS ARE THERE IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND HENCE HIS RELIANCE ON THE SAID CASE IS NOT WELL - FOUNDED. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF ANANT SHELTERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) ADDITION U/S.68 WAS DELETED BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE NO ATTEMPT TO DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN TO REBUT EVIDENC ES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT SO IN THE INSTANT CASE. AND FINALLY, THE APPELLANT'S RELIANCE ON ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT IN ITS OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2010 - 11 WILL BE OF NO AVAIL BECAUSE THE LENDERS DURING THAT PERIOD WERE MOSTLY FAMILY MEMBERS AND CONCERNS AND NO ENQUIRY HAD BEEN MADE BY THE AO TO CONTROVERT EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT NONE OF THE SAID FOUR PARTIES IS A MEMBER OF THE APPELLANT'S FAMILY OR OTHERWISE RELATED TO THE APPELLANT. MOREOVER, THE AO IN THE PRESENT - CASE HAD CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES WITH THE SAID FOUR PARTIES. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE NOTICES U/S. 1 33(6)/SUMMONS U/S.131 ISSUED BY THE AO TO SHRI HARESH DEVA RAVRIYA AND SHRI VIRENDRA MANILAL GANDHI HAD BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL 8 ITA NO. 4396/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) LILADHAR R. MAJETHIA VS. D CIT AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS 'LEFT' AND 'NOT KNOWN' RESPECTIVELY, AS BROUGHT OUT ON PAGE - 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FURTHER, THE AO HAD SCRUTINIZED AND ANALYSED THE BANK ACCOUNTS, IT RETURNS AND BALANCE SHEETS OF THE SAID FOUR PARTIES AND ARRIVED AT HIS FINDINGS WHICH ARE BROUGHT OUT IN PARAS - 4.3 TO 4.8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 4.3.4 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE AFORESAID LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS.L5,00, 000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED AS THE APPELLANT FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS U /S.68 OF THE ACT OF PROVING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SAID FOUR PARTIES AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.15,00,00 0/ - WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY UP HELD . 8 . AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 9 . I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. I FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A LOAN OF RS.15 LACS FROM FOUR PERSONS. THE FACTS RECORDED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW G IVE A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE PERSON'S GIVING THE LOAN DO NOT HAVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS. THEY HAVE RETURNED INCOME BELOW THE TAX ABLE LIMITS. THESE HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE BARELY MEETING THE BASIC NEEDS , LEAVE ALONE GIVING THEM THE CAPABILITY TO GRANT THE LOAN S OF THE MAGNITUDE IN THIS CASE. FURTHER , IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT THERE IS NO CLEAR INDICATION OF THE REGULAR BUSINESS OR SOURCE OF INCOME. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES , THE FACT THAT JUST BEFORE GIVING THE LOAN TH ERE IS DEPOSIT OF EQUIVALENT AMOUNT IN THE BANK AC COUNTS IS CERTAINLY A FACTOR FOR WHICH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT PUT UPON BLINKERS. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS HAVE NOT AT ALL BEEN ESTABLISHED . I N SUCH CIRCUMSTANC ES , THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER'S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW W HEREIN THESE HAVE BEEN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSEESSEE AS 9 ITA NO. 4396/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) LILADHAR R. MAJETHIA VS. D CIT UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. THE CASE LAW FROM HONBLE J URISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE ORCHID INDUSTRIES RELIED UPON BY THE COUNS EL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CA SE. THE SAID CASE DEALT BY THE HON BLE HIGH COURT WAS WITH RESPECT TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BY CORPORATE SHARE APPLICANTS. HENCE , THIS CASE DOESN'T SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FAC T , ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , RATIO FROM HONBLE APEX COURT D ECISION IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) AND CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) IS APPLICABLE WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES SHOULD NOT PUT UPON BLINKERS BUT LOOK INTO THE ECONOMIC REALITIES AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. THE F ACT IN THE PRESENT CASE INDICATE THAT DESPITE THE ASSESSEE MAKING AVAILABLE CONFIRMATION AND OTHER EVIDENCE, THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE LENDERS I S ABYSMALLY LOW AND HENCE THESE LOANS HAVE RIGHTLY BEEN ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERSS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HENCE, I AFFIRM THE SAME. 1 0 . IN T HE RESULT, TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.12.2017 SD/ - (S HAMIM YAHYA ) / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 18.12.2017 . . ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS 10 ITA NO. 4396/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) LILADHAR R. MAJETHIA VS. D CIT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI