DCIT, Kanpur V. Shri Anurag Agarwal, Kanpur

ITA 693/LKW/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 54800 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SWARN SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Search and seizure; Additional evidence
• Section: 153A; 133(6); 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.693/LUC/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2000-01 DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KANPUR V. SHRI. ANUJRAG AGARWAL KANPUR PAN:ABAPA2090H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.10/LUC/2011 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.693/LUC/2010] ASSESSMENT YEAR:2000-01 SHRI. ANUJRAG AGARWAL KANPUR V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KANPUR PAN:ABAPA2090H (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR, D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI. SWARN SINGH, C.A. DATE OF HEARING: 18.8.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.8.2011 O R D E R PER H. L. KARWA: THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) I, KANPUR DATED 1.9.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. 2. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 1. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM SHRI ASHOK - : 2 : - KUMARLALCHANDANI IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION BEFORE HE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE THE SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN AND HAS ALSO NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS AS PROVIDED U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS CONDUCTED BY THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT ON 1.12.2004 AT THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI. AMAR NATH GUPTA GROUP OF CASES I.E. M/S OIL EMPORIUM, M/S YOG BUILDERS AND M/S YOG INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., 123/F-1, KALPI ROAD, KANPUR. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,19,080 ON 16.6.2006. IN VIEW OF THE COMPLEXITY OF ACCOUNTS, SPECIAL AUDIT WAS RECOMMENDED. THE ASSESSEE GOT HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS AUDITED FROM SPECIAL AUDITOR, M/S CHOUDHARY PANDIA & COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT VIDE LETTER DATED 25.6.2007. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH 142(2A) OF THE ACT ON 24.8.2007 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT ` 28,36,220 BY MAKING CERTAIN ADITIIONS/DISALLOWANCES. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI. ASHOK KUMAR LALCHANDANI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THIS ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER:- THERE APPEARS A CREDIT OF 15,00,000 ON 22.3.2000. ON VERIFICATION OF THE WITHDRAWAL IT IS SEEN THAT THE WITHDRAWAL HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR DEBIT TO ASHOK KUMAR LALCHANDANI ON 23.3.2000. THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CREDIT OF ` 5,00,000. THE SAME WILL BE ADDED BACK AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT DATED 20.11.2009/31.12.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ARE AS UNDER:- 22. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WERE FORWARDED TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE COMMENT. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED THE TRANSACTION INDEPENDENTLY AND COMMENTED IN HIS REPORT DATED - : 3 : - 20.11.2009/31.12.2009 THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE VERIFIABLE, THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` 5,00,000. THUS, GROUND OF APPEAL III(B) IS ALLOWED. 6. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. A COPY OF REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 20.12.2009/31.12.2009 WAS SUBMITTED BY SHRI. SWARN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER READS AS UNDER:- BEFORE YOUR HONOUR, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATIONS FROM SHRI ASHOK LALCHANDANI AND M/S KESHAV FINCON PVT LTD WITH COPIES OF THEIR BANK ACCOUNT. ON VERIFICATION, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/- FROM SHRI ASHOK LALCHANDANI. THIS AMOUNT WAS TAKEN THROUGH BANK OF BARODA, KABARI MARKET BRANCH IN THE NAME OF SHRI ASHOK LALCHANDANI ON 03.03.2000. IN RESPECT OF M/S KESHAV FINCON PVT LTD. IT NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.7,00,000/- AND RS.5,00,000/- ON 09.03.2000 AND 22.03.2000 RESPECTIVELY THROUGH BANK. THIS WAS PART OF LOAN RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF RS.12,00,000/- GIVEN TO M/S KESHAV FINCON PVT LTD. IN THIS RESPECT, NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WERE ISSUED TO SHRI ASHOK LALCHANDANI AND M/S KESHAV FINCON LTD TO FURNISH CERTAIN INFORMATION ALONG DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. REPLIES FROM THE PARTIES HAS BEEN RECEIVED ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE VIZ. BANK STATEMENT, CONFIRMATIONS AND BALANCE SHEETS FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR WHICH IS VERIFIABLE. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED THE TRANSACTION INDEPENDENTLY AND CATEGORICALLY COMMENTED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE VERIFIABLE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL. - : 4 : - 9. GROUNDS NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 2. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW IN TREATING THE GIFT FROM MR. ALOK AGRAWAL TO BE GENUINE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTY WAS NOT ESTABLISHED AND THE DONOR WAS A MAN OF VERY SMALL MEANS. 3. IN DOING SO THE CIT (A) FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SETTLED LAW THAT BY MERELY SUBMITTING THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE PAN, THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONOR CAN NOT GET ESTABLISHED. 10. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 2.12.1999 (RECEIVED FROM SHRI. ALOK AGRAWAL). 11. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 29. THE AO HAS FORWARDED THE REPORT IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED ENTRIES FOR WHICH ADDITION WERE MADE BUT HOWEVER NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF SAID UNEXPLAINED GIFT STATED TO BE RECEIVED FROM SHRI ALOK AGARWAL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY AO FOR WANT OF COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO RELIED ON CERTAIN GENERAL INFORMATION WHICH IS IRRELEVANT TO THE SPECIFIC TRANSACTION OF GIFT OF RS.5 LAKHS BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND SHRI ALOK AGARWAL. AS PER THE RECORD, THE AMOUNT OF RS.5 LAKHS HAS BEEN RECORDED AS GIFT FOR WHICH NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE AO BUT SURPRISINGLY THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY AO AS A BOGUS GIFTS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. NO MATERIAL AND BASIS FOR SUCH ADDITION HAS BEEN NOTED BY AO EXCEPT THE GENERAL INFORMATION WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF HEAR - SAY. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED DOCUMENTS WHICH SHOWS THAT SHRI ALOK AGARWAL HAD CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION OF GIFT TO THE APPELLANT, THAT SHRI ALOK AGARWAL WAS ASSESSED TO TAX AND THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION HAS TAKEN PLACE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. I FIND THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY AO IS WITHOUT BASIS. THE APPLICANT HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AND DULY EXPLAINED THE GIFT OF RS.5 LAKHS FROM SHRI ALOK AGARWAL. CONSIDERING - : 5 : - THE LEGAL POSITION IN THIS BEHALF AS LAID DOWN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LACS. THUS, GROUND NO, (III)(D) OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SHRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR, LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI. SWARN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS:- A) CONFIRMATION OF CREDIT ENTRY; B) COPY OF INCOME-TAX RETURN OF THE CREDITOR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000- 01; AND C) PHOTOCOPY OF PAN CARD OF THE CREDITOR. 12.1 SHRI. SWARN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE COMPLETE DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN RESPECT OF THE CREDITOR, NO ENQUIRY WHATSOEVER WAS MADE EITHER FROM THE ASSESSEE OR DIRECTLY FROM THE CREDITOR. THE ONUS WHICH CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS FULLY DISCHARGED. SINCE NO ENQUIRIES WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THE INFERENCE ARBITRARILY DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TOTALLY UNWARRANTED AND UNSUSTAINABLE. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS A BOGUS GIFT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, NO MATERIAL AND BASIS FOR SUCH ADDITION HAS BEEN NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT GENERAL INFORMATION WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF HEAR-SAY. THERE IS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT SHRI. ALOK AGARWAL HAD CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION OF GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. SHRI. ALOK AGARWAL WAS ASSESSED TO TAX AND THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION HAS BEEN TAKEN PLACE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. WE HOLD THAT ON THE BASIS OF INSUFFICIENT ENQUIRIES, THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ARBITRARY AND UNWARRANTED. IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DISMISS GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3 OF THE APPEAL. - : 6 : - 13. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 4. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM SHRI M. K. SHUKLA ON A WRONG APPRECIATION OF LAW AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS DESPITE THE CLEAR FINDING TO THIS RESPECT BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS AS PROVIDED U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 14. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS BEING UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN BANK ACCOUNT ON 23/24.2.2000 RECEIVED FROM SHRI. M. K. SHUKLA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER:- THERE APPEARS CREDIT OF RS.5,00,000/- ON 23.2.000 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT S.B. ACCOUNT NO.7211 IN BANK OF BARODA, KABARI MARKET, KANPUR. IT WAS BEING READ AS 24.2.00. THE INVESTIGATION WING CONSIDERED IT TO BE GIFT FROM M.K. SHUKLA. SHRI M .K. SHUKLA WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE SOURCE OF THE GIFT. HE EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS A LOAN. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SAID SUM AS PROVED GIFT AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF DONORS. IN THE REPLY SRI M.K. SHUKLA GAVE THE REPLY CLAIMING IT AS LOAN. THE SOURCE IS CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED FROM ANURAG AGARWAL. HOWEVER, NEITHER THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT NOR THE EVIDENCE OF HAVING RECEIVED THE SUM FROM ANURAG AGARWAL AND THE NATURE OF RECEIPT HAS BEEN FILED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED A REPLY TO THE NOTICE DATED 7.8.07. THE CASH CREDIT THUS REMAINS UNPROVED. THE SAME WILL BE ADDED BACK AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (ADDITION RS.5,00,000) 15. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 33. THE AO HAS FORWARDED THE REPORT IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED ENTRIES FOR WHICH ADDITION WERE MADE BUT HOWEVER NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED IN - : 7 : - RESPECT OF SAID UNEXPLAINED LOAN STATED TO BE RECEIVED FROM SHRI M.K.SHUKLA. IT SEEMS THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY AO FOR WANT OF COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LENDER AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE AO RELIED ON CERTAIN GENERAL INFORMATION WHICH IS IRRELEVANT TO THE SPECIFIC TRANSACTION OF LOAN OF RS.5 LAKHS BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND SHRI M.K.SHUKLA. AS PER THE ACCOUNTS AND AS PER THE RECORD, THE AMOUNT OF RS.5 LAKHS HAS BEEN RECORDED AS LOAN FOR WHICH NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE AO BUT SURPRISINGLY THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY AO AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. NO MATERIAL AND BASIS FOR SUCH ADDITION HAS BEEN NOTED BY AO EXCEPT THE GENERAL INFORMATION WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF HEAR - SAY. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED DOCUMENTS WHICH SHOWS THAT SHRI M.K.SHUKLA HAD CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION OF LOAN TO THE APPELLANT, THAT HE WAS ASSESSED TO TAX AT THE TIME OF TRANSACTION, AND THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION HAS TAKEN PLACE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. I FIND THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY AO IS WITHOUT BASIS. THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AND DULY EXPLAINED THE LOAN OF RS.5 LAKHS FROM SHRI M.K.SHUKLA WHO HAS ALSO SEPARATELY CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT. CONSIDERING THE LEGAL POSITION IN THIS BEHALF AS LAID DOWN THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. (1986) 159 ITR PAGE 78 (SC), THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LAC. THUS, GROUND NO. III(E) OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS APPARENT FROM RECORD THAT SHRI. M. K. SHUKLA HAS CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION OF LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS ALSO ASSESSED TO TAX AT THE TIME OF TRANSACTION AND THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN PLACE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AND DULY EXPLAINED THE LOAN OF ` 5 LAKHS FROM SHRI. M. K. SHUKLA, WHO HAS ALSO SEPARATELY CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM RECORD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE UNEXPLAINED ENTRIES, FOR WHICH ADDITIONS WERE MADE, HOWEVER, NO - : 8 : - COMMENTS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WANT OF COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI. M. K. SHUKLA AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ASSIGNED ANY COGENT REASON WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION. WE FULLY AGREE WITH THIS OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT NO MATERIAL AND BASIS FOR THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT GENERAL INFORMATION WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF HEAR-SAY. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE AT THIS STAGE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL. 17. GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 5. CIT(A) ERRED DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,10,000/- BEING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ALLEGED TO BE FROM M/S KESHAV FINCOM LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.12 LAKHS + RS.10,000/- FROM APPELLANT HIMSELF ON A WRONG APPRECIATION OF LAW AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS SUBSTITUTING HIS OWN SATISFACTION IN PLACE OF A.O.S SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS AS PROVIDED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT ANY IN DISCREPANCY WHICH COULD INDICATE THAT THE AO'S SATISFACTION WAS BASED ON A WRONG APPRECIATION OF FACTS. 18. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 12.10 LAKHS OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ON BEING REQUIRED, THE ASSESSEE FILED STATEMENT OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT NO.31531048 WITH STANDARD CHARTERED GRIND LAYS BANK, FOR THE PERIOD 9.3.00 TO 31.3.00 WHICH SHOWS FOLLOWING CREDIT ENTRY:- DATE AMOUNT (RS) 9.3.00 7,00,000 / - 10.3.2000 10,000 / - 22.3.2000 5,00,000 / - TOTAL 12,10,000 / - DESPITE OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN BANK AS MENTIONED ABOVE. AS SUCH, THE SAME WILL BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 12.10 LAKHS OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 41. THE SAME WERE FORWARDED BY MY PREDECESSOR TO THE AO WHO IN TURN HAS COMMENTED ON THIS ISSUE THAT 'THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CONFIRMATION AND BANK STATEMENT OF (SUCH AND SUCH PERSONS) IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT, COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF I.T. RETURN WITH CONFIRMATORY LETTER HAS BEEN FILED BY THE RELEVANT PARTIES. THE SAME ARE VERIFIABLE'. THIS COMMENT APPEARS IN RESPECT OF CREDIT ENTRIES OF FOLLOWING : (1) RS. 7,00,000/- FROM M/S KESHAV FINCON LTD. (2) RS. 5,00,000/ - FROM M/S KESHAV FINCON LTD. (3) RS, 10,000/- FROM SELF 42. I HAVE ALSO LOOKED INTO THE VARIOUS CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND REPORT OF THE AO ON THE SAME IN WHICH AO HAS REPORTED THAT THESE ENTRIES ARE VERIFIABLE. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.12,10,000/- AND GROUND NO.III(G) OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 20. AFTER HEARING THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT DATED 20.11.2009/31.12.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED IN THE REPORT THAT REPLY FROM THE PARTY HAS BEEN RECEIVED ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE VIZ. BANK STATEMENT, CONFIRMATION AND BALANCE SHEET FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR WHICH IS VERIFIABLE. IN VIEW OF THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 12.10 LAKHS. WE, :-10-: THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL. 21. NO OTHER POINT WAS RAISED OR ARGUED BEFORE US. C.O. NO.10/LKW/2011: BY THE ASSESSEE: 22. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, SHRI. SWARN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS FOR THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS NOT PRESSED. 23. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTION ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.8.2011. SD/- SD/- [ N. K. SAINI] [H. L. KARWA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:25.8.2011 JJ:1808 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR