M/s Adonis Finnancial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 768/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0649 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RES
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Peak credit; Accommodation entries
• Section: 153A; 68

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 768 & 769/DEL/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPE LLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL ME MBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCO UNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 768 /DEL/20 16 (A.Y 2003-04) & I.T.A. NO. 769/DEL/201 6 (A.Y 2004-05) (THROUGH VIDEO CON FERENCING) M/S ADONIS FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 13/34, W.E.A, KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI-110005 PAN: AADCA5783E (APPELLANT) VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29 NEW DELHI ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 27/11/2015 PASSED BY CIT(A)-30, NEW DELHI FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- I.T.A. NO. 768 /DEL/2016 1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINING THE COMMISSION INCOME @ 2% ON THE AMOUN T REPRESENTING THE ENTRIES GIVEN TO OUTSIDE PARTIES WITHOUT CORRECTLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE ITAT V IDE ITS ORDER DATED APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. H. K. CHOUDHARY, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 28.06.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.07.2021 2 ITA NO. 768 & 769/DEL/2016 18.10.2013. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE COMMISSION INCOME @ 2% DISREGARDING THE DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE ITAT TO APPL Y THE RATE CONSIDERING THE PRECEDENCE AVAILABLE IN THIS REGARD, FOR WHICH NECE SSARY EVIDENCE HAD BEEN DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 3. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN TAKING A VIEW THAT PREC EDENCE AVAILABLE IN THE FORM OF APPELLATE / ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN OTHER CASE S COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING THE RATE OF COMMISSION IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED TO DETERMINE THE RATE OF COMMISSION TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PRECEDENCE AVAILABLE IN THIS REGA RD. 4. THAT THE CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDE R OF ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINING COMMISSION @ 2% ON THE BASIS OF ROUGH N OTINGS IN SEIZED PAPERS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE NOTINGS UNDER REFEREN CE COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS NEITHER SAME WERE SPECIFICALLY IN REGARD TO RATE OF COMMISSION NOR DETAILS WERE CORROBORATED WITH OTHER MATERIAL AND IN ANY CA SE THE RATES MENTIONED THEREIN FOR A SMALL AMOUNT COULD NOT BE APPLIED IN ALL THE CASES OF THE GROUP FOR DETERMINING THE RATE OF COMMISSION ON TOTAL AMO UNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND THE NOTINGS UNDER REFERENCE WERE ALSO N OT RELEVANT TO ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 5. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 52,41,000/- BEING THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELL ANT COMPANY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ADMITTEDLY THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS BEING CONTROLLED BY MR. TARUN GOYAL AND HE WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES THROUGH VARIOUS ENTITIES, INC LUDING THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCO UNT OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ABOVE BUSINESS AND FOR PRO VIDING ENTRIES FROM THE ACCOUNT OF APPELLANT AS WELL AS FROM OTHER COMPANIE S AND, THEREFORE, CASH DEPOSITED IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE COULD NOT BE ADD ED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 6. THAT THE CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT S INCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED COMMISSION INCOME ON THE AMO UNT OF ACCOMMODATION 3 ITA NO. 768 & 769/DEL/2016 ENTRIES, CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.5 2,41,000/- CANNOT BE ADDED AS TRANSACTIONS OF DEPOSIT AND OF GIVING ENTR IES ARE TWO SIDES OF SAME TRANSACTION AND, THEREFORE, ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUN T OF CASH DEPOSITS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED. 7. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF PROVING IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES IN RELATION OF CASH DEPOSITS WHICH DEPOSITS ARE ADMITTEDLY PART BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND, THEREFORE, HE HAS ERRED IN TAKING A VIEW THAT APPEL LANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED INFORMATION IN REGARD TO CASH DEPO SITS. HE ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE DIRECTIONS OF ITAT IN THIS REGARD. 8. THAT THE CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN NOT RESTRICTING TH E ADDITION IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS WITH REFERENCE TO PEAK CREDIT AS PER DIREC TIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 18.10.2013. 9. THAT THE CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATED THAT CONSIDERING THE CASH DEPOSITS AS INCOME IS ALSO CONTRARY TO THE STAND TA KEN BY THE DEPARTMENT WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN NOIDA CHARGE , IN THE CASES OF GROUP, IN WHICH CASES COMMISSION INCOME HAS BEEN DETERMINE D WITH REFERENCE TO CREDIT ENTRIES IN BANK ACCOUNT INCLUDING THE CASH D EPOSITS. 10. THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) ARE BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE, DESERVE TO BE QUASHED. I.T.A. NO. 769 /DEL/2016 1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINING THE COMMISSION INCOME @ 2% ON THE AMOUN T REPRESENTING THE ENTRIES GIVEN TO OUTSIDE PARTIES WITHOUT CORRECTLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE ITAT V IDE ITS ORDER DATED 18.10.2013. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE COMMISSI ON INCOME @ 2% DISREGARDING THE DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE ITAT TO APPL Y THE RATE CONSIDERING THE PRECEDENCE AVAILABLE IN THIS REGARD, FOR WHICH NECE SSARY EVIDENCE HAD BEEN DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 3. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN TAKING A VIEW THAT PR ECEDENCE AVAILABLE IN THE 4 ITA NO. 768 & 769/DEL/2016 FORM OF APPELLATE / ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN OTHER CASE S COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING THE RATE OF COMMISSION IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED TO DETERMINE THE RATE OF COMMISSION TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PRECEDENCE AVAILABLE IN THIS REGA RD. 4. THAT THE CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE O RDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINING COMMISSION @ 2% ON THE BASIS OF ROUGH N OTINGS IN SEIZED PAPERS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE NOTINGS UNDER REFEREN CE COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS NEITHER SAME WERE SPECIFICALLY IN REGARD TO RATE OF COMMISSION NOR DETAILS WERE CORROBORATED WITH OTHER MATERIAL AND IN ANY CA SE THE RATES MENTIONED THEREIN FOR A SMALL AMOUNT COULD NOT BE APPLIED IN ALL THE CASES OF THE GROUP FOR DETERMINING THE RATE OF COMMISSION ON TOTAL AMO UNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND THE NOTINGS UNDER REFERENCE WERE ALSO N OT RELEVANT TO ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 5. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 75,10,400/- BEING THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELL ANT COMPANY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ADMITTEDLY THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS BEING CONTROLLED BY MR. TARUN GOYAL AND HE WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES THROUGH VARIOUS ENTITIES, INC LUDING THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCO UNT OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ABOVE BUSINESS AND FOR PRO VIDING ENTRIES FROM THE ACCOUNT OF APPELLANT AS WELL AS FROM OTHER COMPANIE S AND, THEREFORE, CASH DEPOSITED IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE COULD NOT BE ADD ED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 6. THAT THE CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED COMMISSION INCOME ON THE AMO UNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.7 5,10,400/- CANNOT BE ADDED AS TRANSACTIONS OF DEPOSIT AND OF GIVING ENTR IES ARE TWO SIDES OF SAME TRANSACTION AND, THEREFORE, ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUN T OF CASH DEPOSITS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED. 7. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF PROVING IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES IN RELATION OF CASH DEPOSITS WHICH 5 ITA NO. 768 & 769/DEL/2016 DEPOSITS ARE ADMITTEDLY PART BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND, THEREFORE, HE HAS ERRED IN TAKING A VIEW THAT APPEL LANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED INFORMATION IN REGARD TO CASH DEPO SITS. HE ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE DIRECTIONS OF ITAT IN THIS REGARD. 8. THAT THE CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN NOT RESTRICTING THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS WITH REFERENCE TO PEAK CREDIT AS PER DIREC TIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 18.10.2013. 9. THAT THE CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATED THAT CONSIDERING THE CASH DEPOSITS AS INCOME IS ALSO CONTRARY TO THE STAND TA KEN BY THE DEPARTMENT WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN NOIDA CHARGE , IN THE CASES OF GROUP, IN WHICH CASES COMMISSION INCOME HAS BEEN DETERMINE D WITH REFERENCE TO CREDIT ENTRIES IN BANK ACCOUNT INCLUDING THE CASH D EPOSITS. 10. THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND CIT(A) ARE BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE, DESERVE TO BE QUASHED. 3. AS BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE IDENTICAL ON FA CTS, WE ARE TAKING FACTS OF A.Y. 2003-04. THE ASSESSEE IS A PART OF TARUN GO YAL GROUP. THE GROUP WAS BEING MANAGED BY MR. TARUN GOYAL. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR MR. TARUN GOYAL WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES THROUGH ITS VARIOUS ENTITIES INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF TARUN GOYAL GROUP A SEARCH HAD TAKEN PLACE ON 15.09.2008. THEREAFTER ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE IN THE CASE OF ENTITIES INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE COMPANY UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE SUBMISSION OF MR. TARUN GOEL HAS BEEN THAT HE HAD EARNED COMMISSION I NCOME IN RESPECT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY HIM AND FOR THIS PURPOSE HE HAS BEEN RECEIVING CASH FROM THE PARTIES AND AFTER LAYERING THE SAME THROUGH HIS VARIOUS ENTITIES HAS BEEN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES F ROM ONE OF HIS GROUP COMPANIES. IN THE YEAR OF SEARCH HE HAD ALSO OFFERE D COMMISSION INCOME OF RS. 10LAC CALCULATED AT 25 PAISA PER HUNDRED RUPEES ON ESTIMATED BUSINESS OF RUPEES 40 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSI NG THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT HAD DETERMINED 6 ITA NO. 768 & 769/DEL/2016 COMMISSION INCOME IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ENTRIES GIV EN OUTSIDE THE GROUP @ 2.25% DISREGARDING CLAIM OF MR. TARUN GOEL THAT COM MISSION INCOME IS TO BE TAXED ONLY IN THE CASE OF MR. TARUN GOEL AND AT THE RATE OF 25 PAISA PER HUNDRED RUPEES. AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PAS SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS). THE CIT(A) HAD UPHELD ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. A GAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL VI DE ITS COMBINED ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF 94 APPEALS, DATED 18.10.2013 HAD REM ANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE SH OULD LOOK INTO THE CREDIT ENTRIES AND ALL THE CREDIT ENTRIES RECEIVED FROM TH E GROUP ENTITIES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AND ON SUCH CREDIT ENTRIES WHICH THE ASSES SEE IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN COMMISSION INCOME SHOULD BE DETERMINED. THE COMMISS ION INCOME MAY BE DETERMINED AS PER THE PRECEDENCE IN THIS REGARD. BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT RATE OF COMMISSION IN T HE TRADE OF PROVIDING COMMISSION ENTRIES WAS ABOUT 0.25%. IN THIS REGARD CERTAIN DECISIONS AND COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED WHEREIN THE DEPARTMENT / APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAD ACCEPTED THE RATE OF COMM ISSION RANGING FROM 25 PAISE PER HUNDRED TO 50 PAISE PER HUNDRED. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF TR IBUNAL. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASS ESSEE HAD SUBMITTED A STATEMENT GIVING NATURE - WISE CATEGORIZATION OF ALL CREDIT ENTRIES IN ITS BA NK ACCOUNT WHEREIN IT HAD CATEGORIZED THE SAME WITH RE FERENCE TO ACCOUNTING ENTRIES RECEIVED FROM GROUP ENTITIES AND CREDIT ENT RIES WHICH COULD BE EXPLAINED AND OTHER CREDIT ENTRIES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH COMMISSION INCOME COULD BE CALCULATED. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED T HAT COMMISSION INCOME MAY BE DETERMINED AT 0.25% I.E. 25 PAISE PER HUNDRE D KEEPING IN VIEW THE APPELLATE AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THE CASE OF OTH ER ASSESSES WHO WERE ALSO IN THE TRADE OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THEREBY DETERMINING THE COMMISSION INCOME @ 2% WITH RESPECT TO ENTRIES GIVEN TO OUTSIDE PARTIES DURING THE YEAR. 7 ITA NO. 768 & 769/DEL/2016 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. DESPITE GIVING NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS OF ASSESS MENT ORDER AND ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH EVIDENCES REP RODUCED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSES SEE ON EARLIER OCCASIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL . IN THE ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AGAIN DETERMINED THE COMMISSI ON INCOME @ 2% WITH RESPECT TO ENTRIES GIVEN TO OUTSIDE PARTIES DURING THE YEAR. HE HAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE TAXABLE INCOME AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE APPELLANT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AS WELL AS CASH DEPOSITS IS CONTRARY TO EACH OTHER. ADMITTEDLY, THE CASH WAS RE CEIVED DURING THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. SAME HAD BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. AFTER LAYERING THE TRANSACTION S, ENTRIES WERE GIVEN TO THE BENEFICIARIES. FURTHER, RATE OF COMMISSION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF ITAT AT THE RATE PREVAILING IN THE TR ADE AND CONSIDERING THE PRECEDENCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PASSED THE ORDER IN COMPLIANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF ITAT. THESE WERE SU BMISSIONS SET OUT IN FORM NO. 35 OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED ALL THE REL EVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE IS A CLEAR FINDIN G OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT AND THE DETAI LS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CREDIT ENTRIES RELATING TO CASH, THE NAME OF THE ALLEGED PERSON FROM WHOM CASH HAS BEEN RECEIVED, IS GIVEN BUT THE CLAIM OF THE IDENTITY IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY WAY OF FILING PAN, ITR, CONFIRMATI ON ETC. AND THEREFORE, IDENTITY IS NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SECOND RO UND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL. THE CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN VARIOUS NAMES, BUT THE 8 ITA NO. 768 & 769/DEL/2016 ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THEIR IDENTITY. THEREFORE, SOURCES OF DEPOSITS WERE NOT PROVED. THUS, THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ESTABLISHING THREE INGREDIENTS THAT OF, IDENTITY, C REDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS, THE SAME WERE NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE A SSESSEE RELATING TO CASH DEPOSITS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BE FORE THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AS PER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS THE UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS WHICH HAS TO BE RESTRICTED TO PEAK RE LATING TO ADDITION U/S 68, THE SAME IS ALSO NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THUS, CIT(A) RIGHTLY REJECTED THE SAID CLAIM. AS REGARDS THE STAND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN NOIDA CHARGE GROUP CA SES, THE SAME IS RIGHTLY REJECTED AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE AS TO HOW THE SAME WILL BE APPLICABLE IN ASSESSEES CASE RELATING TO CREDIT ENTRIES IN BA NK ACCOUNT INCLUDING CASH DEPOSITS. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 BEING ITA NO. 768/DEL/2016 IS DISMISSED. 8. AS REGARDS ITA NO. 769/DEL/2016 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 , THE SAME IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF A.Y. 2004-05 AND THERE ARE NO DISTINGUIS HING FACTS EMERGING FROM THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AS W ELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES . HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 BEING ITA NO. 769/DEL/201 6 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 9. IN RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF JULY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 16/07/2021 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 9 ITA NO. 768 & 769/DEL/2016 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI