, - , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI , ! ' , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITA NO.6355/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MR. RAKESH RAMBALI SHRIVASTAV, PLOT NO.140, RSC 31/30, SECTOR-3, CHARKOP, KANDIVALI (W) MUMBAI-400067 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-31(3)(1), C-13, PRATAYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI / ASSESSEE / REVENUE P.A. NO. AABCS1430L $ % & / ASSESSEE BY SHRI AAKRITI SETH $ % & / REVENUE BY MS. N. HEMALATHA-DR / DATE OF HEARING 04/01/2018 & / DATE OF ORDER: 04/01/2018 & / O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/06/2017 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, ITA NO.6355/MUM/2017 RAKESH RAMBALI SHRIVASTAV 2 MUMBAI, ON THE ADDITION OF RS.11,19,265/- TO THE RE TURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNJUSTIFIABLY DEEMING THE SU NDRY LOANS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. DURING HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, MS. AAKRITI SETH, CONTENDED THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AS CONFIRMATION WERE D ULY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THUS THE ADDITION WAS UNJUSTIFI ABLY MADE. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO FILED A LIST OF CONFIRMA TIONS FROM THE CONCERNED PERSON ALONG WITH RELEVANT DETAILS. I T WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE REQUIRES FRESH ADJUDICATIO N. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, MS. N. HEMALATHA, CONTE NDED THAT THIS LIST WAS NOT FULLY FURNISHED BEFORE THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER AND ONLY PART DETAILS WERE FILED. 2.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE OBTAINED SUND RY LOANS OF RS.11,95,951/- DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCI AL YEAR. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS LIKE CONFIRMATIO NS NAME AND ADDRESSES ALONG WITH PAN CARD. ON VERIFICATION OF THE ITA NO.6355/MUM/2017 RAKESH RAMBALI SHRIVASTAV 3 SAME, IT WAS FOUND THAT ALL THE LOANS WERE BELOW RS.20,000/- AND ARE IN CASH, THEREFORE, THEIR GENUI NENESS CANNOT BE VERIFIED. ON FURTHER VERIFICATION, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.11,35,735/- AND THERE WAS NO CONFIRMATION FOR RS.60,216/-. HOWEVER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MA DE THE ADDITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON TH E BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION THAT THERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT TO T HE TUNE OF RS.29,25,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IF THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER WAS APPREHENSIVE OF ANY MALA-FIDE, NOTHING PREVENTED HIM TO EXAMINE THE PERSONS FROM WHOM SUCH LOANS WERE TAKEN. THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN. NO PERSONS SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD, THUS, WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION, THIS APPEAL IS SENT TO THE FILE OF TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE TO HIS SATISFACTION. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FURNI SH THE NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND IF SO DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE CONCERNED PERSONS BEFORE HI M. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.6355/MUM/2017 RAKESH RAMBALI SHRIVASTAV 4 FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOTH SIDES AT T HE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 04/01/2018. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) ! ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 04/01/2018 F{X~{T? P.S / ! & $ )!*+ ,&+-* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '#$%& / THE APPELLANT 2. '(%& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ) * / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. ) ) * / CIT- , MUMBAI 5. +,- ' , ) '#$ ' / , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. -0 1$ / GUARD FILE. & / BY ORDER, (+# ' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI