M/s Yog Builders, Kanpur V. The A.C.I.T-C.C-I, Kanpur

ITA 524/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 92101 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAM GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Onus to prove
• Section: 153A; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.524/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002-03 M/S YOG BUILDERS 123/1F, KALPI ROAD KANPUR V. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 KANPUR TAN/PAN:AAAFX3499D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. S. K. JAIN, FCA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. ANUPAM GUPTA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 16 02 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 04 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED LOANS OF RS.5,00,000/- EACH FROM SHRI RAJIV SHUKLA AND SHRI ASHISH PANDEY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-2002 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 MERELY ON THE BASIS OF NON PRODUCTION OF CREDITORS AFTER LAPSE OF MORE THAN 10 YEARS. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF BOTH THE CREDITORS TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY HAD GIVEN THESE AMOUNTS TOWARDS BOOKING OF FLAT IN YOG TOWER, RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX BUILT BY THE APPELLANT FIRM, BUT AFTER SOME TIME THESE PERSONS GOT THE BOOKING CANCELLED AND THE AMOUNTS WERE REFUNDED BACK, THEREFORE, THE :- 2 -: PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF TRADING RECEIPTS AND THE ADDITION WAS WHOLLY UNWARRANTED AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A), BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 4. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 2, THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) IS INSUPPORTABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IN ANY CASE THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED ARE EXTREMELY UNJUSTIFIED, MUCH TOO HIGH AND EXCESSIVE. THAT ANY OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS MAY BE DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MAY BE GRANTED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR THE REASON THAT SINCE THE GROUND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE, THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED AND BE DISPOSED OF:- 6. THAT THE LD. A.O. AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO HAVE DEALT WITH THE ASSESSMENT UNDER APPEAL HAVE FAILED TO CONSIDER AND APPRECIATE THAT THE PROVISION OF THE SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN WITHOUT FIRST RECORDING REASONS IN SOME CASE PENDING BEFORE THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH SATISFACTION CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER APPEAL IS INSUPPORTABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 3. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS:- 1. MOHAN DAIRY VS. UOI, 163 TAXMAN 274. 2. KIRAN SINGH AND OTHERS VS. CHAMAN PASWAN AND OTHERS, 1954 AIR 340 :- 3 -: 3. SMT. PRABHA RANI AGARWAL VS. I.T.O., 351 ITR 275. 4. CIT VS. ITAT & OTHERS (WRIT PETITION (C) NO.4684/2010). 5. P.V. DOSHI VS. CIT, 113 ITR 22. 4. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR THE REASON THAT IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RE- ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT OF RS.10 LAKHS BY MAKING CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS AS TO WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE SCOPE OF JURISDICTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONLY TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT OF RS.10 LAKHS. HE HAS NO POWER TO EXCEED HIS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE ANOTHER ISSUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCORDINGLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION, AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING ON THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT OF RS.5 LAKHS EACH IN THE NAMES OF SHRI. RAJEEV SHUKLA AND SHRI. ASHISH PANDEY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL HAS ARISEN OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), IN WHICH THE ISSUE OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IS INVOLVED. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL, NO GROUND RELATING TO VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS EVER RAISED BEFORE ANY OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL CANNOT BE ADMITTED. 5. THE LD. D.R. HAS ALSO COMMENTED ON THE JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT ALL THESE JUDGMENTS TALK ABOUT THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND DURING THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL, WHEREAS IN :- 4 -: SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL THE SCOPE OF JURISDICTION IS VERY LIMITED, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSUMES JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE A PARTICULAR ISSUE BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND CANNOT BE ADMITTED AT THIS STAGE. THE LD. D.R. HAS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIGVIJAY CHEMICALS LTD. VS. ACIT, 248 ITR 381, IN WHICH THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO AFFORD OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO A PARTY BEFORE RECORDING SATISFACTION UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. AFTER ALL, OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING HAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE MAKING ASSESSMENT AND HENCE IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO REQUIRE ANY OTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE RECORDING THE SATISFACTION. THEIR LORDSHIPS HAS FURTHER HELD THAT MOREOVER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE GIVING OF OPPORTUNITY, AS SATISFACTION IS NOT A QUASI JUDICIAL ORDER BUT AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. IT WAS ALSO HELD BY THEIR LORDSHIPS THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT THAT SATISFACTION MUST BE RECORDED IN WRITING. THIS JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED ON 8 TH DECEMBER, 2000 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ON 16.10.2006. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARY VS. ACIT [2007] 289 ITR 341 (SC) MANDATING RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 23.2.2007. THEREFORE, AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME WHEN NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED, THE LEGAL POSITION BY VIRTUE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO RECORD REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, NO IRREGULARITY/ILLEGALITY CAN BE CALLED IN THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT EVEN WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. :- 5 -: 6. IN REBUTTAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LEGAL GROUND CAN BE RAISED EVEN IN SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL WHERE IT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE AND NO INVESTIGATION OR ENQUIRY IS CALLED FOR 7. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD AND THE JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE SOLITARY ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT. WHILE REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS MADE CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS AS PER PARA 9 OF ITS ORDER, WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 'WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE MUST PROVE THE FOLLOWING: (I) THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR (II) THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR TO ADVANCE MONEY, AND (HI) THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDUCED EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE THE AFORESAID, THE ONUS SHIFTS TO THE DEPARTMENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE MERE FURNISHING OF PARTICULARS, OR THE MERE FACT OF PAYMENT BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR THE MERE SUBMISSION OF A CONFIRMATORY LETTER BY THE CREDITOR IS, BY ITSELF, NOT ENOUGH TO SHIFT THE ONUS ONTO THE DEPARTMENT ALTHOUGH THESE FACTS MAY, ALONG WITH OTHER FACTS, BE RELEVANT IN ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. SHRI VIVEK MISHRA, LD. CIT (DR) POINTED OUT THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS. AT THIS STAGE, SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, CA AND SHRI SUDHINDRA JAIN, CA, LD. COUNSELS FOR THE ASSESSEE AGREED :- 6 -: THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL PRODUCE THE CREDITORS BEFORE THE AO EXAMINATION IF AN OPPORTUNITY IS ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER EXAMINING THE CREDITORS . IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FREE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN HE WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION WAS AGAIN CONFIRMED, AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FINDING NO FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS. THEREFORE, IN THE SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WAS ONLY WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT OF RS.10 LAKHS IN THE NAMES OF SHRI. RAJEEV SHUKLA AND SHRI. ASHISH PANDEY, FROM WHOM THE AMOUNT OF RS.5 LAKHS EACH WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS DEPOSIT. BESIDE THIS ISSUE, NO OTHER ISSUE WAS EITHER REFERRED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION OR EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE SECOND ROUND. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL GROUND WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE SEARCHED PERSON WAS REQUIRED TO RECORD SATISFACTION THAT PARTICULAR MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BELONGS TO THE PERSON UPON WHOM NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS SOUGHT TO BE ISSUED BY VIRTUE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. ACIT (SUPRA). SINCE NO :- 7 -: SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED CONSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT DESERVES TO BE ANNULLED. THERE IS NO QUARREL ON THIS LEGAL PREPOSITION, BUT THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US IS WHETHER THIS LEGAL GROUND CAN BE RAISED BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND IN SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS A LIMITED SCOPE OF JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE A PARTICULAR ISSUE BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE A PARTICULAR ISSUE FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL OR THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HE HAS NO RIGHT TO EXCEED ITS JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON HIM BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION TO THE LD. CIT(A) I.E. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AS THE SCOPE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE WAS RESTRICTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL AND THE SCOPE OF JURISDICTION CANNOT BE INCREASED BY THE AUTHORITIES ACTING UNDER THE LAW. 9. REFERENCE OF VARIOUS JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REGARD TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, BUT IN MOST OF THE JUDGMENTS, WE FIND THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS RAISED BEFORE THE FIRST OR SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AND BEING LEGAL IN NATURE, ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS DIRECTED TO BE ADMITTED BY THE FIRST OR SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. IN THIS REGARD, THERE IS NO QUARREL. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS ONLY WHETHER SUCH TYPE OF ADDITIONAL GROUND CAN BE RAISED IN THE SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL WHERE THE SCOPE OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE VERY LIMITED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. PRABHA RANI AGRAWAL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [2013] 33 TAXMANN.COM 617 AND IN THIS CASE ALSO WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS RAISED IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION, CAN BE ADMITTED AT ANY STAGE BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES IN FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL :- 8 -: WHERE THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITIES HAS VAST DISCRETION, BUT IN THE SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAS LIMITED JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE ANY THOSE ISSUES WHICH WERE DIRECTED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSUMES JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THOSE ISSUE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OTHER THAN THE GROUNDS, ON WHICH DIRECTIONS ARE ISSUED, CANNOT BE RAISED AND ADJUDICATED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHEN THE MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE TRIBUNAL WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS, THE OTHER ADDITIONAL GROUNDS CANNOT BE RAISED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE ANY OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THE TRIBUNAL. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO ADMIT THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS IRRELEVANT WHETHER THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE. WE ACCORDINGLY REJECT THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. 10. NOW COMING ON MERIT, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS AND CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS TO ADVANCE THE MONEY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. BUT DESPITE OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE, NO EVIDENCE WAS PLACED. INITIALLY, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THESE TWO PERSONS HAVE GONE OUT OF STATION AND THEY WOULD BE BACK IN THE FIRST WEEK OF NOVEMBER. THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS ACCEDED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT DESPITE AFFORDING OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THESE CREDITORS. AS PER DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS TO ADVANCE MONEY, BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BANK STATEMENT OR OTHER EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE FINANCIAL CREDITWORTHINESS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT :- 9 -: DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO PROVE ALL THE INGREDIENTS I.E. IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS AND CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS TO ADVANCE THE MONEY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE DEPOSIT AS UNEXPLAINED AND MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME. 11. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT IMPROVE HIS CASE AND FOR WANT OF CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS, THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 12. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH APRIL, 2015 JJ:3003 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR