Dr. Kuldeep Kumar Babel, UDAIPUR V. ITO, UDAIPUR

ITA 445/JODH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70216 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENC H : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 445/JODH/2010 (A.Y. 2004-05) DR. KULDEEP KUMAR BABEL, VS. THE ITO 100, GOVIND NAGAR, HIRAN MAGARI, WARD 1(1), SECTOR 13, UDAIPUR. UDAIPUR. PAN NO. AAYPB94924K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMIT KOTHARI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI- D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 05/09/2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/09/2013. O R D E R PER N.K.SAINI, A.M THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 06/05/2010 OF LD. CIT (A), UDAIPUR. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THE LD. ITO WAS WRONG IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- U/S 68 IN THE NAME OF SMT. CHETNA BABEL, SHE IS ALREADY ASSESSED TO TAX FOR MORE THAN LAST 10 YEARS HAVING PAN AGAPB 3713 D AND ALSO PRODUCED FOR THE CONFIRMATION OF LOAN AMOUNT BEFORE THE ITO & SHE 2 CONFIRMED ABOUT GIVING THE LOAN AND THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE SAME ADDITION. 2. THE LD. ITO WAS WRONG IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,77,498/- U/S 68 IN THE NAME OF SMT. CHETNA BABEL, SHE IS ALREADY AS SESSED TO TAX FOR MORE THAN LAST 10 YEARS HAVING PAN AGAPB 3713 D AND ALSO PRODUCED FOR THE CONFIRMATION OF LOAN AMOUNT BEFORE THE ITO & SHE CONFIRMED ABOUT GIVING THE LOAN AND THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE SAME ADDITION. 3. THE LD. ITO WAS WRONG IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,93,750/- U/S 68 AGAINST CASH CREDITORS OF DIFFERENT SMALL AMOUNTS A ND THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,38,000/- 4. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVE ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AME ND, ALTER OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE HEARING. 2 VIDE GROUND NO.1, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RE LATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT FOR SHORT) WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SMT.CHETNA BABEL. 3. FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 01/11/2004 BY DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 4,45,716/, WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AT TH E RETURNED INCOME ON 25/08/2005. LATER ON, CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTI NY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO TICED THAT THERE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 2,00,000/- IN THE ASSESSEES CU RRENT BANK JOINT ACCOUNT NO. 4363 WITH SBBJ, BADGAON. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE 3 SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY HIS WIFE SMT.CHETNA BA BEL IN THEIR JOINT BANK ACCOUNT AS SHE WAS NOT HAVING INDIVIDUAL BANK ACCOUNT AND THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AS REFUND OF LAND TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SMT.CHETNA BABEL UNDER SE CTION 131 OF THE ACT ON 12/12/2006. SHE REPLIED TO QUESTION NOS. 12 & 1 3 THAT SHE HAD GIVEN LOAN OF RS. 2,00,000/- WITHOUT INTEREST TO DR. KULD EEP KUMAR BABEL- ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS OUT OF HER PAST SAVINGS. SHE ALSO FURNISHED THE COPIES OF HER RETURNS OF INCOME FILED FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 TO 2004-05. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT NO SUCH LOAN HA D BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN. HE, THEREFORE, MADE THE ADDITION IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO TH E LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT SMT. CHETNA BABEL WAS AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE FOR THE LAST 10 TO 12 YEARS AND HAD CONFIRMED THE CREDIT IN HER STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT, SHE ALSO FURNISHED THE AFFIDAVIT FOR CONFIRMING THE SAID DEP OSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E DISCHARGED THE BURDEN CAST UPON HIM, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS . 2,00,000/- MAY BE DELETED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HO N'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. METACHEM INDUSTRIES REPORTED IN 245 ITR 160 (MP). 4 IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE SAME VIEW WAS FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. CHOTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. BY THE ITAT JODHPUR BENCH. 5. LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT IT WAS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT WIFE OF TH E ASSESSEE SMT. CHETNA BABEL WAS AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE WITH THE DEPARTMEN T. HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE JOINT BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT VERIFIABLE FROM THE INCOME TAX RETURNS OF SMT. CHETNA BABEL. HE ALSO O BSERVED THAT EVEN THOUGH SMT. CHETNA BABEL HAD ADMITTED TO HAVE DEPOS IT THE AMOUNT IN CASH IN THE JOINT ACCOUNT OUT OF HER PAST SAVINGS, BUT IT WAS DIS-BELIEVABLE THAT SUCH SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT WOULD BE KEPT IDLE AT HOME AND WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. HE, THEREFORE, CONF IRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW, THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SU BMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY SMT.CHETNA BABEL IN THE JOI NT BANK ACCOUNT AND HER STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 12/12/2006, WHEREIN S HE HAD CONFIRMED THE DEPOSIT, WHICH WAS RECEIVED OUT OF THE LAND TRA NSACTION AND THAT SHE WAS REGULARLY ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND THE SOURCE WAS EXPLAINED. IT 5 WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS NOT A LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION WAS JUSTIFIED. 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPP ORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING A JOINT BANK ACCOUNT ALONG WITH HIS WIFE SMT. CHETNA BABEL I.E. ACCOUNT NO. 4363 MAINTAINED WITH SBBJ, BADGAON. THE WIFE OF THE ASS ESSEE IN HER STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 12/1 2/2006 STATED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY HER IN THE JOINT B ANK ACCOUNT AND SHE WAS ALSO ASSESSED TO TAX. IN OUR OPINION, IF THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE DEPOSIT IN THE JOINT BAN K ACCOUNT BY ONE OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER, WHO HERSELF IS ASSESSED TO TAX AND FILING HER RETURN OF INCOME REGULARLY, THEN NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A LOAN CASH CREDIT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DELETE T HIS ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6 9. THE NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,77,498/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF SMT. CHETNA BABEL. 10. FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN INVESTMENT OF RS. 27,64,259/- IN THE FI XED ASSETS AND THE SOURCES OF THE SAID INVESTMENT WERE STATED AS UNDER :- LOAN FROM G.E. CAPITAL SERVICES RS. 11,04,750/- LOAN FROM SBBJ A/C NO. 11703 RS. 8,00,000/- LOAN FROM SBBJ A/C NO. 12205 RS. 1,00,000/- LOAN FROM SMT.CHETNA BABEL (NET) RS. 2,77,498/- OUT OF CASH BALANCE IN THE BUSINESS RS. 4,64,011 /- ----------------- TOTAL RS. 27,64,259/- ------------------- THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN RECEIVED FROM SMT. CHETNA BABEL AMOUNTING TO RS. 2, 77,498/- IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT SHE CONFIRMED IN HER STATEMENT RECORD ED ON 12/12/2006 UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. 11. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LOAN WAS GIVEN BY SMT. CHETN A BABEL OUT OF THE 7 WITHDRAWAL MADE ON 25/02/2002 FROM P. JAIN JEWELLER S. COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF SMT. CHETNA BABEL AS APPEARING IN THE BO OKS OF P. JAIN JEWELLERS, THIRUPATI FROM 01/04/1997 TO 31/03/2007 WAS FURNISHED. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED BURDEN CAST UPON HIM AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. LE ARNED CIT(A) DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND C ONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW, THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF SMT. CHETNA BABEL IN THE BOOKS OF P. JAIN JEWELLERS FROM WHOM IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THI S AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY HER IS PLACED AT PAGE 28 OF THE ASSESSE ES PAPER BOOK. FROM THE SAID ACCOUNT, IT IS NOTICED THAT AN OPENING BAL ANCE ON 01/04/1997 AT RS. 1,75,922.40 WAS APPEARING AND INTEREST AT THE R ATE OF RS. 12% IS CREDITED YEAR AFTER YEAR, AND AS ON 25/02/2002, THE AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN. FROM THE SAID ACCOUNT, IT IS CLEAR THAT SMT. CHETNA BABEL WAS HAVING CREDIT BALANCE WHICH WAS DEPOSITED WITH THE ASSESSEE AFTER MAKING THE WITHDRAWAL. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT S MT. CHETNA BABEL CONFIRMED THE AMOUNT, WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESS EE AS LOAN IN HER 8 STATEMENT, RECORDED ON 12/12/2006. SHE IS ALSO ASS ESSED TO INCOME TAX AND FILING HER RETURN OF INCOME REGULARLY, THEREFOR E, WHEN THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED THE ONUS BY PRODUCING THE DEPOSITOR, WHO ADMITTED IN HER STATEMENT, THE VERACITY OF THE LOAN GIVEN TO THE AS SESSEE AND EXPLAINED SOURCE OF THE SAME, THEREFORE, THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITOR, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND HER CREDITWORTHINESS WAS PRO VED. SO, NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORD INGLY, THIS ADDITION OF RS. 2,77,498/- IS DELETED. 13 . THE LAST ISSUE RELATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDI TION OF RS. 1,38,000/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,93,750/- MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 14. FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CASH LOANS FOR SHORT TERM FROM THE FOL LOWING 12 PERSONS AND REPAID THE SAME:- 1. SHRI RAJESH BOLIA RS. 15,000/- 2. S.S. MEHTA RS. 19,000/- 3. JAGDISH RS. 18,000/- 4. RAJ KUMAR RS. 18,000/- 5. SUNIL RS. 15,000/- 6. PANKAJ RS. 15,000/- 9 7. HEM LATA JANI RS. 18,000/- 8. CHANDRA GOPAL RS. 18,000/- 9. NIRMAL RS. 17,000/- 10. RAJESH KUMAR RS. 18,000/- 11. JO CCY PU RS. 17,000/- 12. KHADIJA SAFEE RS. 1,05,750/- ------------------ TOTAL RS. 2,93,750/- ------------------- THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS INCLUDING ADDRESS, PAN, SOURCE OF INCOME AND CONFIR MATION FROM THE CASH CREDITORS. HE ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE A LL THESE 12 NEW CASH CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE SAME ON 27/1 1/2006 IN THE CASE OF 9 CASH CREDITORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED FR OM THE SAID DETAILS THAT ALL THE ABOVE LOANS HAD BEEN TAKEN AND REPAID IN CA SH BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMATION FILED DO NOT CONTAIN COMPLETE ADDRESS, PAN & BANK ACCOUNT AND WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY PROOF OF SOURCE OF IN COME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE STATED IN T HE DETAILS FURNISHED THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO TAKE CONFIRMATION FROM 03 CRE DITORS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 2,93,750/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR HE HAD RECEIVED PETT Y CASH AMOUNT FROM 10 11 PERSONS RANGING FROM 15,000/- TO 19,000/- TOTALI NG TO RS. 1,88,000/- AND FILED THE CONFIRMATION FROM ALL THOSE CREDITORS AND IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CONFIRMATION, HE SHOULD HAVE ISSUED SUMMONS TO ALL THE CREDITORS FORCING THEIR PRESENCE AS SO DONE IN THE CASE OF SMT. CHETNA BABEL. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT T HE SAID ADDITION INCLUDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,05,750/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE CASE OF KHALIZA SAFEE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT A CTUALLY IT WAS NOT THE CREDITOR DURING THE YEAR BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FIRST MADE THE PAYMENT TO KHALIZA SAFEE AND LATER ON RECEIVED THIS AMOUNT, SO , IT WAS NOT A CASH CREDIT, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE ACCO UNT OF KHALIZA SAFEE. LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED IN THE CONFIRM ATION COMPLETE ADDRESS AND PAN NUMBER OF SUNIL JAIN, NIRMAL SHARMA AND HEMLATA JAIN FROM WHOM RS. 15,000/-, RS. 17,000/- & RS. 18,000/ - RESPECTIVELY WERE RECEIVED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT TAKEN AN Y STEP BY ISSUING SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT TO VERIFY THE CONTENTS OF THE CONFIRMATION SO FILED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. SIMILARLY, THE LEARNED CIT(A ) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO CASH C REDIT IN THE CASE OF KHALIJA SAFEE BECAUSE IT WAS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BA CK BY THE ASSESSEE 11 FROM KHALIJA SAFEE. HE THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 1,05,750/- RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE FROM KHALIJA SAFEE TO WHOM ON VARIOUS DATES, AMOUNT WAS PAID THROUGH CHEQUE AND THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,38,000/- (RS. 2,93,750 RS. 50,000 RS. 1,05,750) WAS CONFIRMED . NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 16. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITORS, SOME OF THEM ARE ALSO REGULAR ASSESSEES AND SINCE HE HAD REPAID THE AMOUNT BACK T O THEM, IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO PRODUCE THOSE CREDITORS, THERE FORE, THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE-LAWS:- 1. ACIT VS. BAHRI BROS. P. LTD. (1985)154 ITR 244 ( PAT) 2. DEBICHAND MOHALLAL VS. ITO (1994) 50 ITD 426 (PA T) 3. CIT VS. RAM NARAIN GOEL (1997) 224 ITR 180 (P & H) 4. CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION P. LTD. (1986) 159 IT R 78 5. CIT VS. HEERALAL CHANGANLAL (2002) 257 ITR 281 ( RAJ) 6. CIT VS. SMT. P.K. NOORJAHAN (1999) 237 ITR 570 ( SC) 7. CIT (CENTRAL), CALCUTTA VS. DAULAT RAM RAWATMULL (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) 12 8. CIT VS. HEERALAL CHAGANLAL TANK (2002) 176 CTR ( RAJ) 495 9. CIT VS. SHREE BARKHA SYNTHETIC LTD. (2003) 182 C TR (RAJ) 175 10. KANHAIYA LAL JANGID VS. ACIT (2008) 8 DTR 38 (R AJ.) 11. LABH CHAND BOHARA VS. ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (RAJ. ) 12. LATE MANGILAL AGARWAL VS. ACIT (2007) 208 CTR 1 59 (RAJ.) 17. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED D.R. SUPPORT ED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE CO NFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITORS, HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF 03 CREDITORS ONLY BY OBSERVING THAT IF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS HAVING ANY DOUBT, HE COULD HAVE VERIFIED BY ISSUING SUMMONS, B UT THIS ACTION WAS NOT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE A DDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 50,000/- WAS DELETED. IN OUR OPINION, WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ABOVE SAID ADDITION, SINCE NO ACTION WA S TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER FURNISHING THE CONFIRMATION BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF 03 CREDITORS, THEN SAME VIEW OUGHT TO HA VE BEEN TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER 08 CREDITORS. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF 13 THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN SUSTAIN ING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,38,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DELETED. 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2013). SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2013. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD.CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, JODHPUR.