DCIT, Hyderabad V. Smt Hameeda Bai, Hyderabad

ITA 529/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2857 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PHANI RAJU
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1) ITA NO. 529/HYD/2010 2) ITA NO.530/HYD/2010 3) ITA NO.531/HYD/2010 ALL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DCIT, CIR-5(1), HYDERABAD. -DO- -DO- VS 1) SMT. HAMEEDA BAI, ABIDS, HYDERABAD. PAN:ABXPB2438H 2) SRI MOHAMMED SHAFFI, HYDERABAD. PAN:ATCPS9218F 3) SRI MOHAMMED FARHAN, HYDERABAD. PAN:ADMPM6173B {APPELLANT) (RESPONDENTS) DEPARTMENT BY : SRI P HANIRAJU ASSESSEES BY : SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO DATE OF HEARING : 06-6-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-6-2013 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER. THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE CASES OF THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSEE-RESPONDENTS ARE DIRECTED A GAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT (A)-V, HYDERABAD AND THEY PE RTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND GROUNDS ARE COMMON AND ALL THESE APPEALS WERE REPRESENTED B Y THE ITA NOS529 TO 531 OF 2010 SMT. HAMEEDA BAI AND OTHERS., HYD. ================== 2 SAME ASSESSEES COUNSEL, THESE ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMBINED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.529/HYD/10 (SMT. HAMEEDA BAI, HYDERABAD) :- 2. THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIV E GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL:- 1. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS DIFFERENCE IN THE GROSS PROFIT OF RS.9,16,281/- WHICH WAS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOS ED DURING SURVEY. 2. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS EXCESS STOCK OF RS.11,98,865/- ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. 3. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE SUSTAINED BOTH THE ADDITIONS SINCE THE DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.12 LAKHS WAS ADDED SEPARATELY BY REDUCING IT FROM TJHE SALES FIGURE WHILE WORKING OUT GROSS PROF IT ADDITION. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDU AL IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN READY-MADE GA RMENTS AND TEXTILES. A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE U/S 133A OF THE ACT ON 27-10-2005. IN THE IMPUGNED ASSE SSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.20,17,119/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SUB JECTED TO SURVEY ACTION, HER CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY A SSESSMENT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN RESPO NSE TO NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED HER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALL OTHER ITA NOS529 TO 531 OF 2010 SMT. HAMEEDA BAI AND OTHERS., HYD. ================== 3 DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS THE RESULT OF THE SURVEY OPERATION IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S SO NA CHILDREN WEAR, THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE AND N OTED ON PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF STOCK TAKEN AT THE TIME OF SU RVEY AN EXCESS STOCK OF RS.11,98,865/- WAS FOUND IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT OF SURVEY OPERATION, THE ASSESSEE MADE A DECLARATION ADMITTING RS.12 LAKHS TOWARDS EXCESS STOCK. THE AS SESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARE D RS.12 LAKHS UNDER REGULAR SALES ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK UN DER SURVEY AND ADMITTED NET PROFIT AT RS.2,77,122/-. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE DECLARED STOCK OF RS.12 LAKH S IF IS EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF GROSS PROFIT EARNED, IT WORKS OUT TO 2.41% WHICH IS VERY LOW IN ASSESSEES LINE OF BUSIN ESS. HE THEREFORE ISSUED A LETTER TO THE ASSESSEE PROPOSING TO ADOPT THE GROSS PROFIT AT THE AVERAGE RATE OF 17.04% ON THE BASIS OF GROSS PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PRECEDING THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND QUANTIFIED THE ADDITION FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE IS AT RS.9,16,281/-. THE ASSESSEE IN HER REPLY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE GROS S PROFIT DECLARED BY HER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPU TE IS COMPARABLE TO GROSS PROFIT DECLARED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE. THE ASSESSING O FFICER HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE AND ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,16,281/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFF ERENCE IN GROSS PROFIT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERV ING THAT THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE OF GOODS MADE OF RS.11,98,865/- WHICH WAS ALSO ADDED TO THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ADDI TIONS MADE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) ITA NOS529 TO 531 OF 2010 SMT. HAMEEDA BAI AND OTHERS., HYD. ================== 4 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAVING ALREADY DECLARED AN AMOUNT OF RS.12 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND INCORPORATED THE SAME INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THERE COULD NOT BE ANY DISCREPANCY WITH REGARD TO GROSS PROFIT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING NOT FOUND ANY DEFECT OR DI SCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND WITHOUT HAVING REJECTED T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THE ADDITION ON ESTIM ATION. THE CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AS SESSEE DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF GROSS PROFIT AS WELL AS ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE CIT (A) HELD IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- 6.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT, T HE 'ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE REMAND REPORT AND ALL THE FACTS ON RECOR D. I FIND THAT THE FOLLOWING POINTS ARE NOTEWORTHY: I. THERE WAS A STOCK DISCREPANCY FOUND DURING THE C OURSE OF SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT. THIS EXCESS S TOCK AMOUNTING TO RS.11,98,865/-WAS DECLARED BY THE APPE LLANT AS UNACCOUNTED STOCK AND THIS STOCK WAS DULY INCORPORATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. II. FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ACCOUNTING, ONC E THE EXCESS STOCK IS INCORPORATED IN THE BOOKS, IT WILL REFLECT AS CL OSING STOCK IMMEDIATELY. THIS WILL INCREASE THE PROFIT OF THE A SSESSEE. THIS IS PRECISELY THE ACCOUNTING TREATMENT WHICH TH E APPELLANT HAS GIVEN AND THERE IS NOTHING INCONGRUOU S ABOUT IT. III. FURTHER, FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPARISON OF GROSS PROFIT OR ANY OTHER ITEMS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO COMPARE 'LIKE' TERMS WITH OTHER LIKE TERMS. IN OTHER WORDS, FOR COMPARING GRO SS PROFIT, ALL THE ITEMS IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT SHOULD BE TAKE N INTO ACCOUNT FOR VARIOUS YEARS. IF GROSS PROFIT WITHOUT CLOSING STOCKS IS TO BE COMPARED, THEN THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MUST REMOVE CLOSING STOCKS FROM THE TRADING ACCOUNT S IN ALL THE THREE YEARS IN ORDER TO COMPARE THE GROSS PROFI T. HOWEVER, IF WE REMOVE CLOSING STOCKS FROM THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHILE NO T REMOVING THE SAME ITEM IN OTHER YEARS, IT IS OBVIOU S THAT THE ITA NOS529 TO 531 OF 2010 SMT. HAMEEDA BAI AND OTHERS., HYD. ================== 5 RESULTS AND COMPARISONS WILL SKEWED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THIS IS WHAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DONE, OBVIOUSLY GETTING INCONSISTENT RESULTS. 6.5 LOOKING AT THE SALES TO PURCHASE RATIOS FOR THE THR EE YEARS, IT IS FOUND THAT FOR THE AY 2004-05, THE RATIO WAS 1.24, FOR THE AY 2005-06, THE RATIO WAS1.27 WHILE FOR THE AY 2006-07, THE RAT IO IS 1.23. THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY IN THESE FIGURES. 6.6 FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO OBVIOUS DISCREPANCY IN THE RESULTS WHICH POINTS TO EARNING OF ANY UNACCOUNTED INCOME. IN ANY CASE, IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT IF THE ACCOUNTS OF AN ASSESSEE DO NOT PROVIDE AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF ITS FINANCIAL AFFAIRS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WEL L WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATE THE PROFIT S. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WOULD PREVENT HIM FROM CALCULATING ACCURATELY THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS. IN FACT, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SINGLE FACT TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN EARNING UNACCOUNTED INCOME, WHIC H IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE UNACCOUNTED STOCKS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND INCORPORATED IN ITS B OOKS PROPERLY, RAISING THE PROFIT. 6.7 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.9, 16,281 /- ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PRO FIT DISCREPANCY IS WITHOUT A BASIS. THIS IS ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 6.8 FURTHER, ONCE THE APPELLANT HAS INCORPORATED THE UN ACCOUNTED STOCK IN ITS BOOKS AND ALSO DISCLOSED IT, THE INCOM E AUTOMATICALLY INCREASES. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN ADDING ONCE AGAIN THE UNACCOUNTED STOCK TO THE TOTAL INCOME AS THIS DEFINITELY TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. THEREFORE , THE ADDITION OF RS.11,98,865/- IS ALSO ORDERED TO BE DELETED. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), THE DE PARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED BEFORE US THAT IF THE EXCESS STOCK OF RS.12 LAKHS I S EXCLUDED, THE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VERY LOW C OMPARED TO THE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONLY DUE TO THE SURVEY, THE EXCESS STOCK ITA NOS529 TO 531 OF 2010 SMT. HAMEEDA BAI AND OTHERS., HYD. ================== 6 CAME TO LIGHT OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE NOT DISCLOSED THE SAME. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED. 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE , ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE ANY ADDITION ON ADHOC BASIS BY ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING ALREADY INCORPORATED THE EXCESS STO CK IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DECLARED IT, ANY FURTHER ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LEARNED AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DEC ISION OF INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH IN C ASE OF M/S VARALAKSHMI GRANITE (P) LTD., (ITA NOS. 1435 TO 1438/HYD/2010) DATED 28-6-2012. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS ALSO A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND A NY DEFECT OR DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, W ITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS RESULTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT DISCREPANCY. F URTHER, THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT T HAT THE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VERY LOW IS WITH OUT ANY SUBSTANCE. IT WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE COMPARABLE CHART GIVEN IN A TABULAR FORM WHICH IS INCORPORATED IN PARA-2 O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN IN THE IMP UGNED ITA NOS529 TO 531 OF 2010 SMT. HAMEEDA BAI AND OTHERS., HYD. ================== 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS COMPARABLE TO THE GROSS PROFIT S HOWN FOR THE PRECEDING TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT IS ALSO A FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCORPORATED THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HAS DECLARED PR OFIT THEREON. THEREFORE, CONSIDERATION OF THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND SEPARATELY AGAIN WOULD AMOUNT TO TAXING THE SAME AMOUNT TWICE. IN AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN DELETING TO THE ADDITION MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT DISCREPANCY OF RS.9,16,281/- OR ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK OF RS.11.98,865/-.. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). HENCE THE GROUND S RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ST ANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO.531/HYD/2010- MOHAMMED FARHAN :- 9. SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE SIMILAR TO ITA NO.529/HYD/2010 IN CASE OF SMT. HAMEEDA BAI, EXCEPTING THE FIGURES, WE FOLLOW THE REASONING GIVEN ABOVE IN CASE OF SMT HAMEEDA BAI AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL AS WELL. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO.530/HYD/2010- MOHAMMED SHAFFI ITA NOS529 TO 531 OF 2010 SMT. HAMEEDA BAI AND OTHERS., HYD. ================== 8 11. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT I S WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.20 L AKHS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCO UNT. 12. BRIEFLY THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE A RE, IN THIS CASE A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED U/S 133A OF THE ACT O N 27-10-2005. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOM E ON 9- 2-2007 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.32,05,220/- FROM THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONTRACT WORKS. IN COURSE OF SCRUTIN Y ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE EXAMINING THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE NOTICED CERTAIN WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS. HE THEREFORE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN BOTH THE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS MORE PARTICULARLY OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAKHS WITH I TS SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. MAPHAR CONSTRUCTIONS ON 3-2- 2006. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT NO EVIDE NCE WITH REGARD TO THE RECEIPT FROM THE AFORESAID AMOUNT FROM M/S MAPHAR CONSTRUCTIONS WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAK HS. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ADDITION SO MADE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 13. IN COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT (A), THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED A CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE CREDITOR WHEREIN ALL THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO SAID CREDITOR LIKE NAM E, ADDRESS, PAN, DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS WERE MENTIONED. THE CIT (A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING ITA NOS529 TO 531 OF 2010 SMT. HAMEEDA BAI AND OTHERS., HYD. ================== 9 OFFICER ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSING O FFICER HOWEVER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT JUSTIFYING THE ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS. THE CIT (A) ON CONSIDERING THE EVIDENC E PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE. THE CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATION LETTER PRODU CED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT IN THE CONFIRM ATION LETTER, THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHE D WITH HIS PAN AND ALSO THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS ALSO HAS BEEN FURNISHED. HE THEREFORE DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- FROM THE ABOVE, I FIND THAT THE CREDITOR HAS BEEN PROPERLY IDENTIFIED. HIS PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER HAS BEEN GIVEN AND THE DETAILS OF THE CHEQUES VIDE WHI CH THE TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED. DET AILS OF THE BANK AND BANK ACCOUNT HAVE ALSO BEEN PROVIDED. FURTHER, ALL THE TRANSACTIONS DULY APPEARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE CREDITOR . COPIES OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTS IN THE BOOKS OF M/S MAPHAR CONSTRUCTIONS CERTIFIED BY THE CREDITOR HAVE ALSO BEEN PROVIDED. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE APPELLAN T HAD DISCHARGED HIS ONUS BY IDENTIFYING THE CREDITOR AND PROVIDING ALL DETAILS REGARDING THE TRANSACTION, IN CLUDING THE BUSINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND HIS PERMANENT ACCO UNT NUMBER. THERE IS, THEREFORE, NO DOUBT ABOUT THE DISCHARGE OF ONUS BY THE APPELLANT AND ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY, I FIN D THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNSUBSTANTIATED CREDITS HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTLY MADE AND SHOULD BE DELETED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECT ED ACCORDINGLY AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. ITA NOS529 TO 531 OF 2010 SMT. HAMEEDA BAI AND OTHERS., HYD. ================== 10 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM T HE CONFIRMATION LETTER FORMING PART OF THE ORDER OF THE CI T (A) THAT THE CREDITOR IS AN INCOME-TAX ASSESSEE AND ALL THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF AMOUNT OF RS .20 LAKHS HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTER . THE SAID CONFIRMATION LETTER NOT ONLY ESTABLISHES THE IDE NTITY OF THE CREDITOR BUT ALSO PROVES THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION BY GIVING THE DETAILS OF CHEQUE NUMBER, B ANK ACCOUNTS ETC., THROUGH WHICH THE TRANSACTION WAS MADE . IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS ALSO REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CHEQUE. THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSEE HAVING ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITO R, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THERE BEING NO DOUB T WITH REGARD TO CREDITWORTHINESS, THE CREDITOR BEING A N INCOME-TAX ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE SAME AND DISMISS THE GROU ND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 15. IN THE RESULT, ALL THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE DE PARTMENT STAND DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 -06-20 13. SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: THE 17 TH JUNE, 2013. ITA NOS529 TO 531 OF 2010 SMT. HAMEEDA BAI AND OTHERS., HYD. ================== 11 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-5(1), 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. 2. SMT. HAMEEDA BAI, 4-1-960, ABIDS ROAD, HYDERABAD. 3. SRI MOHAMMED SHAFFI, PROP. M/S MM CONSTRUCTIONS, 4- 1-960, ABIDS ROAD, HYDERABAD. 4. MOHD. FARHAN, PROP. M/S. SONA LADIES & GIRLS WEAR, 4-1-960, ABIDS ROAD, HYDERABAD. 5. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-5, HYDERABAD. 6. CIT CONCERNED 7. THE DR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD. JMR* ITA NOS529 TO 531 OF 2010 SMT. HAMEEDA BAI AND OTHERS., HYD. ================== 12