Srivani Mullapudi , Hyderabad V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

ITA 476/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2933 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-09-2021
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VENUDHAR GODESI
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Source of fund; Bad and doubtful debts; Onus to prove; TDS
• Section: 143(1); 2(A); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 476/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SRIVANI MULLAPUDI, HYDERABAD [PAN: ADDPM2237P] VS ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI MOHD.AFZAL, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI VENUDHAR GODESI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 20-09-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-10-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY.2013-14 ARISES AGAINS T THE CIT(A)-2, HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 05-10-2017, IN CAS E NO.0061 / CIT(A)-2 / HYD / 2016-17, INVOLVING PROCE EDINGS U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE ACT]; RESPECTIVELY. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. IT TRANSPIRES AT THE OUTSET THAT THIS ASSESSEES INSTANT APPEAL SUFFERS FROM 446 DAYS DELAY STATED TO BE ATTRIBUTA BLE TO ITA NO. 476/HYD/2019 :- 2 -: THE REASON(S) BEYOND HER CONTROL AS PER CONDONATION PETITION/AFFIDAVIT. NO REBUTTAL HAS COME FROM THE DEPARTM ENTAL SIDE. THE IMPUGNED DELAY IS CONDONED THEREFORE. 3. THE ASSESSEE RAISES THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROU NDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL: 2.THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAININ G THE RATE OF ESTIMATE A 10% MADE BY A.O ON THE GROSS SUB-CONTRAC T RECEIPTS AND ADDITION OF RS.50,64,828/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL SUPPLIES BY THE MAIN CONTRACTOR NAMELY PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION LTD. 3.(A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE A.O WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSIST ENCY AND DEPARTING FROM EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND HOLDING INTEREST INCOME AS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S' AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD 'BUSINESS' AS CLAIMED. (B) THE BASIS FOR UPHOLDING THE CONCLUSION OF THE I TO BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE GAVE UP BUSINESS IN THIS YEAR IS WRONG . CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE COULD BE SEVERAL SOURCES UNDE R THE HEAD 'BUSINESS' (C) CONSEQUENTIALLY THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM O F RS. 70,22,551/- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS IS ALSO UNJUSTIFIED. 4.THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE UNFAIRLY DISALLOWED TH E CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.99,73,337/- INCURRED TOWARDS INTE REST. THE DISALLOWANCES ARE BASED ON SUSPICION, SURMISE AND C ONJECTURES, THAT THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO MANY INTEREST PAYMENTS NOT LIABLE TO TDS. IT IS NOT THEIR CASE THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4 0(A)(IA) ARE APPLICABLE. 5.(A) LEARNED CIT(A) AND A.O ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN A DDING RS. 50,42,125/- U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. (B) THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROOF B Y FURNISHING THE IDENTITY THE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF E ACH OF THE CREDITORS AND ALSO BY FURTHER SHOWING THAT THE LOAN S WERE REPAID SUBSEQUENTLY THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. (C) THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY A.O AND SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) ON SUSPICION, SURMISE AND CONJECTURE. ITA NO. 476/HYD/2019 :- 3 -: 4. IT NEXT TRANSPIRES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HER PETI TION SEEKING TO RAISE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND AS WELL ALLEGIN G THAT THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS AS IN C ASE A COMPLETE SCRUTINY WHEREVER IT IS AN INSTANCE OF LIMI TED SCRUTINY ONLY. AFTER VEHEMENTLY ARGUING FOR SOME TIME , LEARNED COUNSEL STATED VERY FAIRLY THAT THE ASSESSEE NO MORE WISHES TO PRESS FOR THE INSTANT ADDITIONAL GROUND(S) AS IT EMERGED FROM A PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE THAT IT WAS IND EED A CASE OF COMPLETE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ONLY. 5. WE NEXT ADVERT TO THE ASSESSEES FIRST AND FOREMOST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEKING TO REVERSE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION ESTIMATING 10% OF HER SUB-CONTRACT RECEIPTS AS HER BUSINESS INCOME. THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUS SION TO THIS EFFECT READS AS UNDER: 2. THE APPELLANT, A DIRECTOR IN M/S. PROGRESSIVE C ONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS .1,07,79,800/-. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME MAINLY CONSI STED OF INTEREST INCOME, RENTAL INCOME, INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND REM AINING INCOME APART FROM CLUBBING OF INCOME OF MINOR CHILDREN. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) NOTED THAT THE APPELL ANT HAS SHOWN GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.5,06,48,283/- TOWARDS ROAD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT RECEIVED FROM M/S. PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIO NS LIMITED (PCL), IN WHICH SHE IS A DIRECTOR. THIS BUSINESS WAS REFLE CTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SRI VENKATARAYA TRADING COMPANY (SVTC) P ROPERTY CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT. SINCE NO EVIDENCE WAS FU RNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FO R THE SAID CONTRACT WORK, THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED AND PROFIT SHOULD NO T BE ESTIMATED AT NOT LESS THAN 10% OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THE SUBMISS IONS MADE BY THE AR IN THIS REGARD ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- 3.1 THE APPELLANT HAS UNDERTAKEN SUB-CONTRACT WORK CONTRACT FROM PCL IN WHICH THE CONTRACTOR HAS RETAINED THE MARGIN OF 5% AFTER WHICH THE APPELLANT NET MARGIN OF 5%. FURTHER, THE MAIN CONTRACTOR ITA NO. 476/HYD/2019 :- 4 -: SUPPLIED MATERIAL OF RS.3,84,37,168/- WHICH WAS REC OVERED FROM THE BILLS AND THEREFORE THE NET VALUE OF CONTRACT AFTER REDUCING THE MATERIAL COST SUPPLIED BY THE MAIN CONTRACTOR IS ON LY RS.1,22,11,115/-. IF THE MATERIAL SUPPLY IS REMOVED , THE PROFIT RATE ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT WORKED OUT MUCH LOWER. 3.2 THE AO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (I) AS PER THE WORK ORDER ISSUED BY THE CONTRACTOR OIL 2.4.2012, THE SCOPE OF WORK IS NEW SITE FORMATION, CLEARANCE, EXC AVATION AND EARTH MOVING AND IT DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY CONSTRUCTION OR BUILDING ACTIVITY. (II) THE APPELLANT DID NOT FURNISH COPIES OF THE BI LLS RAISED BY HER ON THE MAIN CONTRACTOR EVEN WHEN SPECIFICALLY ASKED FO R. (III) MEMORANDUM OF PAYMENT-1' ISSUE BY THE CONTRAC TOR DOES GIVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT MATERIAL PROVIDED TO THE APPELLAN T BEING SUBCONTRACTOR. (IV) COPY OF MEASUREMENT BOOK WAS NOT FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. (V) 'ABSTRACT NOTE' OF M/S. PCL MENTIONED THAT RS.3 ,84,37,168/- HAS BEEN DEBITED AS AGAINST MATERIAL ISSUED BUT NO DETA ILS OF MATERIAL LIKE DESCRIPTION, QUANTITY AND DATE OF ISSUE HAVE B EEN MENTIONED. 3.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND THE FACT THAT THE APPE LLANT IS A DIRECTOR IN PCL, THE AO HELD THAT IT IS APPARENT THAT COST OF R ECOVERY MATERIAL IS NOTHING BUT A COLLUSION TO REDUCE THE PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO MERIT IN APPELLANT'S SUBMISSI ON THAT RS.3,84,37,168/- WAS RECOVERED BY THE MAIN CONTRACT OR, HENCE PROFIT SHOULD BE ESTIMATED ON THE BALANCE AMOUNT. 3.5 IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE APPELLANT, IT WAS HELD BY THE AO THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE AR ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE AO ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ES TIMATED INCOME AT 10% OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO 5.50,64,828/- . 3.6 THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONTESTED IN GRO UND NO.2 OF APPEAL WHICH IS AS UNDER:- 2(A) THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE INCO ME FROM THE SUB- CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.5,06,48,283/- @ 10% THEREOF IGNORING THE RECOVERIES MADE BY AND THE NET RECEIPTS FROM THE MA IN CONTRACTOR. (B) THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INFERRING INCOME FRO M THE MATERIAL ELEMENT OF THE SUB-CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.5,06,48, 283/-. THE AO FAILED TO NOTE THAT THERE COULD BE NO PROFIT ON THE AMOUNT RECOVERED FROM THE BILLS TOWARDS MATERIAL. (C) THERE COULD BE NO PROFIT WHEN THE AMOUNT CORRES PONDING TO THE MATERIALS HAS NEVER REACHED THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 476/HYD/2019 :- 5 -: 4. BEFORE ME, THE AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BEFORE THE AO. THE AR ALSO SUBMITTED TWO PAPER BOOKS PRODUCING THE EVIDENCES RELIED UPON. 4.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND SUBMI SSIONS OF THE AR. THE AO HAS GIVEN PECULIAR AND UNUSUAL FEATURES OF T HE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO CONTRACT BUSINESS. FURTHER , IT IS A MATERIAL FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR OF PCL, FROM WHICH THE SAID CONTRACT WAS RECEIVED. THESE PECULIAR AND UNUSUAL F EATURES ARE MATERIAL TO ARRIVE AT REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE ES TIMATION OF PROFIT. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE WORK EXECUTED BY THE APPELLA NT IS NOT OF CONSTRUCTION BUT IT RELATES TO EARTH WORK, EXCAVATI ON ETC. WHICH HAS HUGE PROFIT MARGIN. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY TH E APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO RATE OF PROFIT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IN VIEW OF THE SALIENT FEATURES BROUGHT ON RECORD B Y THE AO. SINCE, THE WORK EXECUTED BY THE APPELLANT IS PRIMARILY OF EART H WORK HAVING HUGE PROFIT MARGIN, THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE AO A T 10% OF GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS IS HELD TO BE REASONABLE AND THER EFORE THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY CONTEND ED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN ASSESSED AT VERY HIGH RATE OF 10% DEPOSITS THE FACT THAT SHE IS ONLY A SUB-CONTRACTOR WHEREIN THE MARGIN DOES NOT CROS S MAXIMUM RATE OF 3 TO 4%. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ASSESS EES INSTANT ARGUMENTS SINCE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ALREADY GRANTED HER SUBSTANTIVE RELIEF IN ESTIMATING THE IMPUGNED PROFIT ELEMENT @10% DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS, DETAILS OF SUB-CONTRACTS (PROJ ECT- WISE) CORRESPONDING AND ALL OTHER OVERHEAD EXPENSES. WE SOUGHT TO KNOW FROM THE LEARNED COUNSEL ABOUT THE ASSES SEES ALLEGED REGULAR BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTIO N BUSINESS WHEREIN HE FAILED TO THROW ANY LIGHT. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DESERVE ANY FURTHER RELIEF OVER AND ABOVE THE IMPUGNED PROFIT ESTIMATION @10%. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 476/HYD/2019 :- 6 -: 7. THE ASSESSEES NEXT SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEKS TO REVE RSE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION INTER ALIA DISALLOWING BAD DEBTS OF RS.70,22,551/-, INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.99,7 3,337/- FOLLOWED BY UN-EXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF RS.50,42,1 25; RESPECTIVELY. MR.AFZALS VEHEMENT ARGUMENTS QUA BAD DEBTS AND INTEREST DISALLOWANCE(S) ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CARRYING MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AND THEREFORE BOTH THE SE CLAIMS HAVE TO BE TREATED AS ALLOWABLE SINCE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FOREGOING BUSI NESS ONLY. HE SOUGHT TO INVITE OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HIMSELF HAS TREATED THE ASSESSEES AS CARRYING THE MONEYLENDING BUSINESS IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS; ALTHO UGH INVOLVING SECTION 143(1) PROCESSING ONLY. FACED WITH THIS SITUATION, AND MORE SO WHEN THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE CASE FILE REGARDING THE LEARNED LOWE R AUTHORITIES TO HAVE SPECIFICALLY ISSUED ANY SHOW CAUS E NOTICE REGARDING VERIFICATION OF THE INSTANT TWIN CLAIMS OF B AD DEBTS INTEREST DISALLOWANCES, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTOR E THE SAME BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS AFRESH ADJ UDICATION AS PER LAW WITHIN THREE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF HE ARING. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 8. LASTLY COMES UN-EXPLAINED CASH CREDITS ADDITION ISS UE OF RS.50,42,125/- MADE IN BOTH THE LOWER PROCEEDINGS. T HE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION AFFIRMING THE SAME TO THIS EFFECT READS AS UNDER: 8. THE AO NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS.50,42,125/- AS UNSECURED LOANS FROM 70 PERSONS D URING THE YEAR. SINCE NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED TO PROVE THE GENUIN ENESS, IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS, THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE ITA NO. 476/HYD/2019 :- 7 -: NOTICE AS TO WHY THE SAID AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE BROU GHT TO TAX U/S.68. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR BEFORE THE A O ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- 8.1 THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN BANK CHEQUES I PAY ORDE RS FROM MANY PERSONS IN AND AROUND TANUKU AREA AND ALREADY SUBMI TTED THE INFORMATION ALONG WITH SIGNED CONFIRMATION LETTERS ON 16.03.2016 TO THE AO. EVIDENCE OF LOAN IN THE FORM OF PATTADAR PA SS BOOK, PROOF OF LOAN GIVEN OUT OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF THE EMPLOY EES ETC. WAS ALSO FURNISHED. FURTHER OUT OF SAID LOANS RECEIVED, THE APPELLANT HAD ALREADY REPAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.46,31,975/- IN THE S UBSEQUENT PERIOD THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE DETAIL S ARE FURNISHED. THE AO HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (I) NONE OF THE 70 UNSECURED CREDITORS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX. (II) EXCEPT 3 PERSONS, THE APPELLANT HAS EVEN NOT F URNISHED PAN OF 67 PERSONS. (III) THE SOURCES FOR THE ALLEGED LOANS BY THE UNSE CURED CREDITORS WAS STATED TO BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, GIFTS, DOMESTIC S AVINGS ETC. SINCE, NONE OF THEM ARE ASSESSES, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS I S NOT VERIFIABLE. THOUGH IN FEW CASES PATTADAR PASS BOOKS WERE ENCLOS ED, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS IN FACT CAR RIED OUT BY THEM AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS EARNED BY THEM. FURTHER, IN RESPECT OF DOMESTIC SAVINGS AND MATURITY OF DEPOSITS ETC., NO EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED TO VERIFY THE CLAIMS. (IV) THE UNSECURED LOANS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY BEAR ER CHEQUES, THE GENUINENESS OF WHICH IS NOT VERIFIED. (V) THE CLAIM THAT UNSECURED LOANS HAVE BEEN SUBSEQ UENTLY REPAID ALONG WITH INTEREST IS OF LITTLE RELEVANCE, SINCE T HE GENUINENESS, IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED. 8.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO HELD THAT THE ONUS HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE APPELLANT IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 AND ADDED BACK THE ENTIRE UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN IN THE CURRENT YEAR OF RS.50,42,125/-. 8.3 THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONTESTED IN GRO UND NO.4 OF APPEAL, WHICH IS AS UNDER:- A) THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,42,125/- AS UNSECURED LOANS FROM AS MANY AS 70 INDIVIDUALS. B) THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE BURDEN OF PROOF WITH RESPECT OF ALL THE CREDITS BY GIVING THE NAMES OF CREDITORS, T HE ADDRESSES AND THEIR SOURCES OF INCOME. ITA NO. 476/HYD/2019 :- 8 -: C) THE AO BASED THE CONCLUSIONS ON SUSPICION, SURMI SE AND CONJUNCTURE WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION OF THE VOLUMIN OUS EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 9. BEFORE ME, THE AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BEFORE THE AO. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE, SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR AND FACTS BORN ON RECORD. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE PHOTO COPIES OF THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE LOANS FURNISHED IN VOL.2 O F PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE SAID CONFIRMATIONS DOES NOT INSPIRIN G MUCH CONFIDENCE ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID EVIDENCE. WHEN THE A O DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS SHE HAD VALID GROUNDS THAT NONE OF THEM ARE ASSESSES AND FURTHER SURPRISINGLY 67 OF 70 PERSONS DO NOT EVEN HAVE ANY PAN. THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE UNS ECURED CREDITORS FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE AO APART FROM MERELY FURNISHING THE CONFIRMATIONS. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I AM INCLINEDTO AGREE WITH TH E AO THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THE ONUS CAST ON HER OF P ROVING GENUINENESS, IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE UNSECURED CRED ITORS. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING ADDITION U/S.68 AMOU NT TO RS.50,42,125/- IS UPHELD AND GROUND NO.4 OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. LEARNED COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT ONLY SUBMITTED THE LIST OF THE CREDITOR PARTIES BUT ALSO THEIR CONFIRMATIONS BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUMS IN ISSUE HAD COME FRO M THE BANKING CHANNEL ONLY. THERE CAN HARDLY BE ANY DISP UTE THAT IT IS THE ASSESSEES ONUS ONLY TO PROVE IDENTITY, GENUIN ENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF SUCH CASH CREDITS WHEREIN SHE CAN NOT SIMPLY TAKE RECOURSE TO FILING LIST THEREOF FOLLOWED BY MECHANICAL CONFIRMATIONS. WE THEREFORE DEEM IT APPROP RIATE TO RESTORE THE INSTAL ISSUE AS WELL BACK TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER WITH A CLEAR-CUT DIRECTION THAT IT SHALL BE THE BOUNDE N DUTY/RISK OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY TO PRODUCE THE CORRESP ONDING PARTIES IN ISSUE; AS AND WHEN REQUIRED TO DO SO, IN CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS WITHIN THREE EFFECTIVE OPPORTU NITIES OF HEARING IN ORDER TO PROVE THEIR GENUINENESS AND ITA NO. 476/HYD/2019 :- 9 -: CREDITWORTHINESS. THE INSTANT LAST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. 10. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER, 2021 SD/- SD/- ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( S.S. GODAR A ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 25-10-2021 TNMM ITA NO. 476/HYD/2019 :- 10 -: COPY TO : 1.SMT.SRIVANI MULLAPUDI, D.NO.6-3-251-7, 3A, BANJAR A HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2.THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD. 3.CIT(APPEALS)-2, HYDERABAD. 4.THE PR.CIT-2, HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6.GUARD FILE.