ITO, UDAIPUR V. Shri Bhim Singh Chundawat, UDAIPUR

ITA 78/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 7823314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR DEEPAK SEHGAL SH G R KOKANI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Salary income; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 43B; 133(6); 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL: JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 77/JODH/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06) & ITA NO. 78/JODH/2013 (A.Y. 2006-07) ITO, WARD-1(2), VS. SHRI BHIM SINGH CHUNDAWAT UDAIPUR. 24, VARDHMAN NAGAR, UDAIPUR. PAN NO. AWPC7825R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAJENDRA JAIN. DEPARTMENT BY : DR. DEEPAK SEHGAL-CIT-DR SH. G.R. KOKANI- DR. DATE OF HEARING : 08/08/2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/08/2013. O R D E R PER BENCH : BOTH THESE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR A.YS. 2005-06 AND 2006-07 ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER . A. ITA NO. 77/JODH/2013 (A.Y. 2006-07) THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CI T(A) DATED 30/11/2012. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED :- 2 1. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,24,912/- MADE U/ S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT IGNORING THE VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS O F SECTION 200(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2.1 DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,32,14,571/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BENAMI ACCOUNT HELD WITH NAME OF M/S. SA RJAN HOUSING FINANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD. IGNORING THE FACT THAT SAID BENAMI ACCOUNTS WERE OPENED AND OPERATED UNDER THE SIGN AND SIGNATURES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. 2.2. IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NON-CONNECTION WITH THIS COMPANY THAN HOW THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE T O GOVT. DEPARTMENT LIKE MINING DEPARTMENT, EXCISE COMMISSIO NER ETC. UNDER HIS SIGN AND SIGNATURE. 3. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,96,583/- ON ACCOU NT OF INTEREST INCOME ACCRUING FROM THESE BENAMI ACCOUNT IN VIEW O F THE FACTS NARRATED IN GROUND NO.3 ABOVE. 4. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN BANK. 2. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE ENTIRE RECORDS. THE FACTS APROPOS GROUND NO. (1) ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF COLLECTION OF TOLL TAX, SALES TA X AND ROYALTY AS PER THE CONTRACT(S) EXEMPTED WITH THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT S. HE ALSO DERIVED INCOME FROM INTEREST AND REMUNERATION FROM A PARTNE RSHIP FIRM NAMED M/S. DEVGANGA ENTERPRISES. HE ALSO DERIVED INTEREST FROM THE BANK DEPOSITS. DURING F.Y. 2004-05, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A LIA BILITY OF TDS AMOUNT OF 3 RS. 53,562/- ON INTEREST PAID. IT WAS FOUND THAT A N AMOUNT OF RS. 5,24,912/- WAS PAID AS INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOAN TO VARIOUS P ARTIES AFTER DEDUCTING TDS U/S 194A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THIS AMOUNT WAS N OT DEPOSITED IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT AS REQUIRED U/S 200(1) O F THE ACT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED ON 2 4/10/2005 AS PER RULES, AFTER IT WAS DEDUCTED ON INTEREST ON SECURED LOAN O N 31/03/2005. THE INTEREST ON DELAYED DEPOSIT WAS ALSO PAID ON 24/10/ 2005. BUT, THE A.O. WAS NOT AGREEABLE AND BY TREATING THIS ACT OF THE ASSES SEE AS A VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(1) OF THE ACT WHICH PRESC RIBES FOR A DUTY OF THE DEDUCTOR ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT TDS WITHIN THE STIPULA TED TIME. THEREFORE, HE HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE INTEREST OF RS. 5,24,912/ - AND HAS ADDED THE SAME IN ASSESSEES HANDS IN A.Y. 2005-06. 2.1 ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THI S ADDITION. BOTH PARTIES HAVE TAKEN THEIR ORIGINAL LINE OF DEFENCE. WE HAVE FOUND IT FOR A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID DEDUCT TDS AND DEPOSITED THE SAME BELATEDLY BUT BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THIS YEAR. THE A SSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED TDS AMOUNT ALONG WITH INTEREST FOR THE DELAYED PERIOD, ON 24/10/2005. THE TDS AMOUNT IF DEPOSITED AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISION OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CAN BE MAD E. THE RULES NOW PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT TDS BEFORE FILING OF THE RO I. THIS ISSUE, BY AND LARGE, STANDS SETTLED IN THIS MANNER. WE HAVE TAKE N NUMEROUS DECISIONS UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, WE DONT FIND 4 ANY INFIRMITY IN THIS FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) WHICH D ESERVES TO BE UPHELD. WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED DELETION AND DISMISS GROUND NO. (1) OF REVENUES APPEAL. 3. THE FACTS APROPOS GROUND NO. 2.1, 2.3 AND 3, WHI CH RAISE A CONNECTED SINGLE ISSUE, ARE THAT :- 6.1. THE FACTS RELATING THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEA LS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION C ONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI GAJENDRA PORVAL GROUP TWO PAY IN SLIPS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. ACC ORDING TO THESE SLIPS, AN AMOUNT OF RS.6 LAKHS WERE CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT THROUGH CHEQUE N0.546115 AND RS.75,000 WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED IN SBBJ, UDAIPUR. 0N ENQUIRY FROM THE BANK, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LD, A. 0. THAT THE SOURCE OF RS.6 LAKHS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS FROM THE ACCOUNT NUMBER 01050020150 WHICH WAS B ELONGING TO M/S. SARYAN HOUSING FINANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD. MAI NTAINED IN SBBJ, UDAIPOLE UDAIPUR. AS IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR IT WAS HELD THAT THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF T HE ABOVE ACCOUNT LAY WITH THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASK ED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.6,00,000 BE NOT AD DED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES IN ACCOUNT N0.1004287 OF M/S. SARJAN HOUSING FINANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD MAIN TAINED IN THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD., UDAIPUR. 5 WHILE CALLING FOR THE EXPLANATION AS MENTIONED ABOV E, IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, IT WAS DEDUCED BY THE THEN A.0. THAT THE ABOVE ACCOUNTS IN SBBJ AND THE BANK O F RAJASTHAN IN THE NAME OF M/S. SARJAN HOUSING FINANCE DEVELOPM ENT LTD WERE BENAMI AND BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP WAS WITH THE A SSESSEE AND NOT WITH M/S SARJAN HOUSING FINANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ID ENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF VARIOUS AMOUNTS BEING CREDITED TO TH E ACCOUNT OF M/S.SARJAN HOUSING FINANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD IN BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD AND SBBJ, UDAIPUR IN THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005- 06. IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSES SEE THAT INCASE OF FAILURE TO GIVE SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, ADDITI ON U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT WILL BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIES TO THE TOTAL INCOME AS DONE IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2004- 05. IN RESPONSE TO ABOVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE L D. A.0. THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF RS.6 LAKHS IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WRONG AS THE ABOVE ACCOUNT PERTAIN TO M/S. SARJ AN HOUSING FINANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD WHICH IS A LIMITED COMPANY HAVING LEGAL ENTITY , SEPARATE PAN NUMBER HAD MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE AUDITED BY INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT 0FRS.75,000 CREDI TED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME IS THE RECEIPT FROM RICO, UDAIPUR AS COMPENSATION AGAINST THE ACQUISITION OF LAND OF THE APPELLANT. THE SUBMISSIO N WITH REGARD TO THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF THE ACCOUNT IN THE N AME OF M/S SARJAN HOUSING FINANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD IN BANK OF R AJASTHAN LTD AND SBBJ ARE MERE REPETITION OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE 6 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND NO NEW REASONS OR EVIDENCES WERE F ILED. AS REGARDS THE INTEREST INCOME ACCRUED TO THE SAID ACCOUNTS OF M/S. SURJAN HOUSING FINANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD WHOSE B ENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP WAS WITH THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBMITTED B EFORE THE LD. A.0. THAT SINCE THE ACCOUNTS WERE IN THE NAME O F M/S. SARJAN HOUSING FINANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD, THE INTEREST INCOM E CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS SUCH INTERE ST INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF THE COMPANY FILED FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN GIVEN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND A.O. REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: 1. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS THE DIRECTOR OF M/S.SA RJAN HOUSING FINANCE AT ANY POINT OF TIME AND IF YES DUR ING WHICH PERIOD AND SUBMIT DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE THROUGH WHICH THE ASSESSEE BECOME THE DIRECTOR 2. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE DIRECTOR, THEN THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE ASSESSEE OPENED AND OPERATED THE ACCOUNT OF MS. SARJAN HOUSI NG FINANCE IN THE CAPACITY OF DIRECTOR. 3. AS PER COPY OF RETURN OF THE COMPANY FILED BEFO RE THE A.O. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE SAID RETURN WAS SIGNE D BY SHRI DAYA RAM AND S. RANAWAT IN THE CAPACITY OF DIRECTOR. HOWEVER, THE ADDRESS OF THE DIRECTORS WER E NOT GIVEN. THE A.0. REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE TH E SAME FOR EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS . 7 IN RESPONSE TO ABOVE QUERIES, IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER BEEN A DIRECTOR OF M/S. SARJAN HOUSING FI NANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD. TO THE QUESTION OF ASSESSEE NOT B EING THE DIRECTOR OF M/S. SARJAN HOUSING FINANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD THEN HOW WAS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO OPEN AND OP ERATE ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF M/S. SARJAN HOUSING FINANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD. THE A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE A CONVINCING REPLY AND THE EXPLANATI ON GIVEN WAS THE SAME AS STATED IN THE PAST WHICH DOES NOT CLEAR THE POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE AND IN FACT MAKES HIS POSITION EVEN MORE DUBIOUS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE COMP LETE ADDRESS OF SHRI DAYA RAM AND S. RANAWAT AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONCERN WITH THE COMPANY AND THEREF ORE NOT POSSIBLE TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION. THE ABOVE ACT IVITIES CLEAR INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE DO NOT WANT TO DISCLOSE THE CORRECT TRUE PICTURE. FURTHER, FROM THE FINDINGS /INFORMATI ON GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON THE SAME ISSUE WAS CONCLUSIVELY PRO VED THAT THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF THE ABOVE ACCOUNT IN SBBJ A ND THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD, UDAIPUR LAY WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID ACCOUNTS WERE OPENED AND OPERATED IN THE SIGNATURES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. FROM THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE FROM THE ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN TO VARIOUS PARTIES LIKE MINING DEPARTMENT, UDAIPUR, MINING ENG INEER UDAIPUR, EXCISE COMMISSIONER, RAJASTHAN, UDAIPUR ET C. ALL THE PAYMENTS ARE RELATED TO VARIOUS KIND OF CONTRACTS S UCH AS COLLECTION OF MINING ROYALTY, COMMERCIAL TAX COLLEC TION, EXCISE COLLECTION. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN IN THE BUSINES S OF MINING ROYALTY, TOLL COLLECTION ETC. FOR PAST SEVERAL YEAR S, ALL THE PAYMENTS APPEARS TO BE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IT WAS THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS THE RE AL 8 BENEFICIARY OF THE ABOVE TWO ACCOUNTS IN THE NAME O F M/S. SARYAN HOUSING FINANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD IN THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN AND SBBJ, UDAIPUR, IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AND AS HELD IN THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, IT WAS HELD BY THE LD. AO THAT THE ASSESS EE THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF THE ABOVE TWO ACCOUNTS IS W ITH THE ASSESSEE AND ALL THE TRANSACTION IN THE SAID ACCOUN TS ARE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE BOUND T O EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE ENTRIES IN THE ABOVE TWO ACCOUNTS. SI NCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES, THE LD. A.0 . TREATED A SUM OF RS,2,50,64,900/- AS MENTIONED IN THE ACCOUNT N0.01050020150 OF M/S. SARJAN HOUSING FINANCE DEVEL OPMENT LTD MAINTAINED WITH SBBJ, UDAIPUR DURING THE PERIOD FROM 5.04, AND RS.81 ,49,671 AS ENTERED IN THE ACCOUNT NO. 100 4287 MAINTAINED WITH THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD DURING TH E PERIOD FROM 19.04.2004 TO 11.03.2005 IN THE NAME OF THE SA ID COMPANY, TOTALING TO RS.3,32,14,571 AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO NS BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR A.Y. 2004-05. 3.2 BEFORE US IT WAS ARGUED THAT FOR A.Y. 2004-05 T HIS ISSUE HAS TRAVELLED UPTO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND THE APPELLATE TRIBU NAL HAS APPROVED THE SIMILAR DELETION. A COPY OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DA TED 10.07.2013 PASSED IN ITA 127/JODH/20010, 605/JODH/2009 & 596/JODH/2009 H AS BEEN ENCLOSED AT PAGES 52 ONWARDS OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. 9 3.3 WE HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OBTAINING IN THIS YEA R VIS--VIS THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE OBTAINING IN A.Y. 2004-05. THE FACTS AR E MUTATIS MUTANDIS IDENTICAL. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED HIS PREDECES SORS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2004- 05 ON THIS ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THUS :- 15. AFTER COGITATING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBTAINING FACTS OF THIS CASE, VIS-A-VIS THE OTHER EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTL Y DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. A.RS SUBMISSION AND THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. D.R. EXCEPT FOR HARPING ON THE STATEMENT OF GAJENDRA PORWAL, HAS NOT BROUGHT FORTH ANY VALID POINT. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED AND DECIDED THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PORWAL HAS SO MUCH EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THIS DELETION. BY RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE TRIBUNAL ORDER WE CANNOT ALLOW GROUND NO. 2.1, 2.2 AND 3 OF REVENUES APPEAL. THEY STAND DISMISSED. 4 THE FACTS APROPOS GROUND NO. (4) ARE THAT THE A.O . HAS ADDED A SUM OF RS. 75,000/- CLAIMED TO BE OUT OF A COMPENSATION AM OUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM RICO ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISITION OF A P IECE OF HIS LAND. AS PER A.O. THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN AND RELATE T HE SAME TO THE ALLEGED 10 COMPENSATION, THEREFORE, HE HAS ADDED A SUM OF RS. 75,000/- IN ASSESSEES HANDS. 4.1 ON THE CONTRARY, LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS AD DITION AFTER EXAMINING THE PAY-SLIP. 4.2 BEFORE US BOTH PARTIES HAVE REITERATED THEIR EA RLIER STAND. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE HAVE FOUND THAT TH E AMOUNT OF RS. 75,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 5546 OF THE A SSESSEE IN THE SBBJ THROUGH AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THE PAY SLIP WAS A VAILABLE BEFORE THE A.O. BUT THE A.O. FAILED TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRIES . KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ISSUE, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED DELETION AS NO OVERWHELMING CON VINCING ARGUMENTS COULD BE PUT FORTH IN FAVOUR OF THIS ADDITION. ACC ORDINGLY, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. (4). 5. AS A RESULT, THIS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 77/JODH/2013 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. B. ITA NO. 78/JODH/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 30/11/2012. FOLLOWING GR OUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL :- 11 1.1. RESTRICTING THE ADDITION FROM RS. 1,94,86,619 /- TO RS. 13,39,750/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U /S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT IGNORING THE FACT THAT GENUINENESS OF 11 C REDITORS WERE NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY PROVING ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS. 1.2 IGNORING THE FACT THAT CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI DHANRAJ PATEL IS NOT AT ALL ESTABLISHED AS ADMITTED BY HIMSELF IN TH E STATEMENT THAT FOR DEPOSITING RS. 905 LACS AS EARNEST MONEY F OR TENDER HE ARRANGED THE FUNDS FROM THE FRIENDS AND RETURN OF E ARNEST MONEY WAS GIVEN AS LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE (SURPRISINGLY MON EY NOT RETURNED BACK TO THE FRIENDS FROM WHOM LOANS ARRANG ED EARLIER). 1.3 IGNORING THE FACT THAT CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI GAMER SINGH CHUNDAWAT FOR CLAIMED LOAN OF RS. 78.45 LACS IS NOT AT ALL ESTABLISHED CONSIDERING HIS INCOME OF RS. 7.24 LACS AND THERE BEING NO EVIDENCE OF GENUINE LOANS TAKEN BY THE CRE DITOR. 1.4 IGNORING THE FACT THAT CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI HIMMAT SINGH CHUNDAWAT FOR LOAN OF RS. 15.10 LACS IS NOT AT ALL ESTABLISHED. 1.5 (A) IGNORING THE FACT THAT CREDITWORTHINESS OF M/S. SHIV WINE AND TOOLS PVT. LTD. FOR LOAN OF RS. 23.00 LACS IS N OT ESTABLISHED AS THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE CREDITO R TO ASSESSEE REMAINS UNVERIFIABLE. (B) OBSERVING THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY THING ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCE D HIS CONCEALED INCOME IN FORM OF CASH CREDIT. 1.6 IGNORING THE FACT THAT CREDITWORTHINESS OF OTHE R CREDITORS NAMELY SHRI DAYA RAM NAYAK, KESAR SINGH RANAWAT, KISHORE K UMAR, 12 MAHENDRA SINGH CHUNDAWAT, MANOHAR KUNWAR, UDAIPUR S INGH RANAWAT AND UDAIPUR SINGH SOLANKI IS NOT ESTABLISHE D. 6. THROUGH THE ABOVE GROUNDS ONLY ONE ISSUE RELATIN G TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,94,86,619/- ADDED U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY THE A. O. AND REDUCED TO RS. 13,39,750/- BY THE LD. CIT(A), HAS BEEN RAISED. THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LD. A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NEW UNSECURED LOANS OF RS'1 ,28,32,430' THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE CONFIRMATION ALONGWITH COPY OF RETURN AND COMPLETE ENCLOSURES AS WELL AS B ANK STATEMENTS IN THE CASE OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM NEW UNSECURED LOANS W ERE ACQUIRED DURING THE YEAR. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE FURNIS HED COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HIGHLIGHTING THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT OBTAINED FROM THEM WHICH ARE AS UN DER: 1. DAYARAM NAYAK RS. 14,06,735 2, DHANRAJ PATEL RS. 09,65,993 3. GAMER SINGH CHUNDAWAT RS. 78,45,504 4. HIMMAT SINGH CHUNDAWAT RS. 15,10,755 5. KESER SINGH RS. 08,41,934 6. KISHORE RS. 09,27,864 7. MAHENDER SINGHCHUNDAWAT RS.04,06,188 8. MANOHAR KUNWAR RS. 09,15,153 10.MANOJ KUMAR RS.08,13,470 11. PYAR KUNWAR RS. 01,70,388 12.SAJJAN KUNWAR RS. 03,55,892 13.SHIV WINES & TOLLS PVT. LTD RS. 23,00,000 14. UDAI SINGH RS. 09,65,993 15. UDAI SINGH SOLANKI RS. 00,60,750 ____________ TOTAL RS. 1, 94, 86,619 ____________ 13 THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY FILED COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE PARTIES AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. NO OTHER DE TAILS ASKED FOR I.E. CONFIRMATION, COPY OF RETURN AND BANK STATEMENTS WE RE FILED. BEFORE CLAIMING A CREDIT AS GENUINE, THE ASSESSEE WAS BOUN D TO FULFILL THREE FUNDAMENTAL CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 68 OF THE I.T.ACT I.E. IDENTITY OF CREDITORS, THEIR CREDI TWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE BURDEN IS ON T HE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE ABOVE THREE CONDITIONS IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER . LF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO AND THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE IS FOUND UNSATISFACTORY, THE AMOUNT CLAIMED AS UNSECURED LOA NS CAN BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS HELD BY THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 805 . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF RETURN OF INCO ME IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: SV.SHRI 1. DHANRAJ PATEL 2. HIMMAT SINGH, 3. PYAR KUNWAR 4. UDAI SINGH, 5. GAMER SINGH CHUNDAWAT, 6. UDAI SINGH RANAWAT. IN OTHER CASES, NO COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME WAS FIL ED TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. A.O. THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATIONS OF THE PARTIES ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND BANK STATEMENT, THE ONUS L AID ON THE ASSESSEE BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT HAS BEEN FULLY DISCHAR GED. HOWEVER, THE LD. A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS ACCORDING TO HIM 14 MERE FURNISHING OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS DO NOT EXONE RATES THE ASSESSEE FROM THE LIABILITY OF PROVING THE CASH CREDITS APPE ARING IN THE BOOKS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, THE A.0. HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON TH E DECISION OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DIZA HOLDINGS (P) LTD. (2002) 120 TAXMAN 539 ( KERALA) WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT 'T HE MERE FURNISHING OF PARTICULARS IS NOT ENOUGH. THE MERE FACT THAT T HE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE IS ALSO NOT CONCLUSI VE . THEREFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE ENTITLED TO CONSIDER WHETHER NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MAD E BY CHEQUES, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED T HE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE AMOUNTS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE A SSESSEE.' SIMILARLY THE LD A.0. HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS, UNITED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL COMPANY (P)LTD (19 91) 187 ITR 596(CAL.) WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 'MERE PRODUCTION OF CONFIRMATORY LETTER BEFORE THE IT0 WOULD NOT BY ITSELF PROVE THAT THE LOANS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED F ROM THOSE LOAN CREDITORS OR THAT THEY HAVE CREDITWORTHINESS.' BEING NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO IN ORDER TO FURTHER VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. A.O. REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE NEW CASH C REDITORS OF M/S. ANACHAL ASSOCIATES, A PROPRIETOR SHIP CONCERN OF TH E ASSESSEE WITH COMPLETE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CL AIM. IN RESPONSE 15 TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ONLY TWO CREDITORS N AMELY SHRI DHANRAJ PATEL AND SHRI DAYARAM WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE RECORD ED , AS PER THE RETURN FILED IN THE CASE OF DHANRAJ PATEL, HIS ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME IS SALARY AND INTEREST INCOME. SIMILAR IS THE CASE IN THE CASE OF SHRI DAYARAM . THE SALARY HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RE CEIVED FROM TWO CONCERNS NAMELY KALPATRU ENTERPRISES AND DEVGANGA E NTERPRISES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE SIGNATURE OF THE AUTHORITY ON THE CONF IRMATION OF SALARY SLIP IS ABSENT, THEREFORE, THE GENUINENESS OF THE T HIS SALARY INCOME IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE. FURTHER, FROM THE STATEMENT OF S HRI DHANRAJ PATEL, THE CRITERIA OF CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR WA S NOT FULFILLED AND HIS MONTHLY SALARY WAS RS.6000 AND THE ANNUAL AGRICULTU RAL INCOME WAS RS.50,000 WHEREAS HE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE ADVANCED R S.9,65,993 TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, IT IS UNBELIEVAB LE THAT THESE PERSONS WERE IN THE CAPACITY TO ADVANCE THE ABOVE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE, FURTHER, IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED FROM THE BANK STATE MENT OF SHRI DHANRAJ PATEL THAT THERE WERE CREDIT ENTRIES OF HUGE DENOMI NATION OF RS.3 LAKHS, RS.9,00,000 RS.7 LAKHS ETC. ON VARIOUS DATES. WHEN ASKED ABOUT THIS, IT WAS STATED BY SHRI DHANRAJ THAT HE HAD NO IDEA OF T HE ABOVE AMOUNTS BEING CREDITED TO HIS ACCOUNTS NOR HAD HE ADVANCED ANY LOANS TO ANY ONE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT WAS CONCLUDED BY THE LD. A.O. THAT THE LOAN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM 16 M/S. DHANRAJ PATEL WAS IN FACT A BOGUS TRANSACTION AS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL DID NOT EXIST IN THIS CASE. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION IN THE CASE OF SHRI DAYARAM . THE ONLY EVIDENCE FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF THE ALLEGED LOAN IS THE COP Y OF BANK STATEMENT. THE TOTAL LOAN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE AS SESSEE BY SHRI DAYARAM IS RS. 14,06,735. BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN FORM OF RETURN OF INCOME TO JUSTIFY THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDE R. FURTHER, AS PER THE BANK STATEMENT, THERE IS ONLY COUPLE OF TRANSAC TION DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FURTHER, FROM THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE CREDITOR, I T WAS ALSO SEEN BY THE A.O. THAT THE DATES ON WHICH THE LOAN WAS RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CREDITOR, SIMILAR AMOUNT WAS CREDITED ON T HE SAME DATE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR. FURTHER, AS PER THE STATEMENT RECORDED, THE ONLY SO URCE OF INCOME OF THE CREDITOR IS MONTHLY SALARY INCOME OF RS.5000 AN D AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF AROUND 1.5 LACS PER ANNUM. WHEN THE CREDI TOR WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH WHICH THE, LOANS WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS STATED BY THE CREDITOR THAT HE HAS NO IDEA REGARDING THE VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS WHICH HAD TAKEN PLACE THROUGH THE SAID ACCOUNT AND HE HAS NOT ADVANCED ANY LOAN TO ANY ONE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT WAS HELD BY THE A.O. THAT THE 17 CAPACITY OF THE LENDER TO LEND THE MONEY DID NOT EX ISTS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF C.KANT & CO. V/S. CIT 126 ITR 63 (CAL). WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 'IN THE CASE OF CASH CREDIT ENTRY IT IS NECESSARY F OR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE NOT ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS BUT AL SO TO PROVE THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS TO ADVANCE THE MONEY AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE A.O. TREATED BOTH THE ABOVE CREDITS AS UNEXPLAINED. AS REGARDS THE REMAINING CASH CREDITS, THE A.0. REQ UIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THEM PERSONALLY FOR VERIFICATION. IN RESPON SE TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED TWO MORE CASH CREDITORS NAMELY SH RI KESAR SINGH AND SHRI MAHENDRA SINGH CHUNDAWAT AND STATEMENT OF BOTH THE CREDITORS WERE RECORDED . THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE COPY OF R ETURN AND COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI KESAR SINGH DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS REGARDS THE 'SOURCE OF INCOME OF SHRI KESAR SING H, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE A.O, THAT HIS ONLY SOURCE IS SALAR Y OF RS.7,000 PER MONTH AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.15000 TO RS. 2 0000. AS REGARDS THE BANK ACCOUNTS, IT WAS STATED BEFORE THE A,0. TH AT HE MAINTAIN ACCOUNT WITH THE UNION BANK AND HE HAD NO IDEA ABOU T THE DEPOSIT IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. SHRI KESAR SINGH ADMITTED T O HAVE ADVANCED LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE SALARY, AGRICULTURA L INCOME AND SALE 18 PROCEEDS OF HOUSE. BUT HE DID NOT REMEMBER THE AMOU NT OF LOAN ADVANCED. THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS A S ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FULFILL THE THREE CONDITI ONS LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WHICH IS NECESS ARY TO PROVE THE CREDITS CLAIMED AS GENUINE. HENCE THE CREDIT IS BOG US. AS REGARDS THE LOAN OF RS.4,00,100 TAKEN FROM SHRI MAHENDRA SINGH CHUNDAWAT, IT WAS STATED BY SHRI MAHENDRA SINGH THA T THE ABOVE LOAN WAS GIVEN OUT OF HIS SAVINGS FROM HIS GOVERNMENT JO B OF A TEACHER. THE CREDITOR MAINTAINS TWO BANK ACCOUNTS ONE WITH SBBJ AND THE OTHER WITH ICICI, UDAIPUR. THE LOAN WAS GIVEN FROM THE BANK AC COUNT MAINTAINED WITH SBBJ. ON EXAMINATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNT, IT W AS NOTICED BY THE A.0. THERE WERE TWO MAJOR CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS. 5 L AKHS AND RS.2,01,500 ON DIFFERENT DATES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-0 6 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SHRI MAHEND RA SINGH ADVANCED THE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE CREDIT ENTRIES. THE A.O. ALSO CONDUCTED ENQUIRES FROM THE BANK U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT AND IT WAS FOUND THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKH WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR FROM THE ACCOUNT N0.61000593299 OF SHRI BH IM SINGH CHUNDAWAT MAINTAINED WITH THE SAME BANK . ON BEING CONFRONTED THIS INFORMATION, IT WAS STATED BY SHRI MAHENDRA SINGH T HAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.5 LAKHS CREDITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT FROM THE AC COUNT OF SHRI BHIM SINGH CHUNDAWAT WAS IN FACT THE LOAN AMOUNT RECEIVE D BACK FROM SHRI 19 BHIM SINGH WHICH HE ADVANCED TO HIM DURING THE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2005-06. HOWEVER, THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION AS THERE WAS NO ENTRY OF LOAN GIVEN TO SHRI BHIM SINGH CHUNDAWAT DURING T HE F.Y. 2005-06 IN BOTH THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH SBBJ AND ICIC I WHICH HE COULD HAVE RECEIVED BACK FROM THE ASSESSEE AS CLAIMED. HE NCE, THE CREDIT CLAIMED IN THE NAME OF SHRI MAHENDRA SINGH CHUNDAWA T WAS TREATED AS BOGUS. THE A.O. ALSO CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES UNDER SEC TION 133(6) IN THE CASE OF PYAR KUNWAR AND SAJJAN KUNWAR WHO HAVE CLAI MED TO HAVE ADVANCED LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE INFORMATION COLLECTED U/S.133(6), IT WAS NOTICED BYTHEA,0. THAT A SUM OF RS.1,68,000 WAS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF MRS. PAYAR KUNWAR M AINAINED WITH SBBJ ,UDAIPUR THROUGH CHEQUE N0.498067 FROM THE ACCOUNT N0.61000593299 OF SHRI BHIM SINGH CHUNDAWAT MAINTAINED WITH THE SA ME BANK AND MRS. PYAR KUNWAR ADVANCED THIS AMOUNT AS LOAN TO SHRI BH IM SINGH ON THE SAME DATE. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION IN THE CASE OF S AJJAN KUNWAR I.E. FIRSTLY THE ASSESSEE ISSUED CHEQUE TO THE CREDITOR AND THEN GOT THE LOAN THROUGH CHEQUE FROM SAJJAN KUNWAR. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED COPIES OF STATEMENT OF THE CREDITORS RECORDED AND REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS RECORDED AND EVIDENC E GATHERED, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED DURING TH E FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS AND ADDED BA CK TO THE TOTAL INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO THIS SHOW CAUSE, IT WAS SUBM ITTED BEFORE THE 20 A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE UNSECURED LOAN THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES ONLY. ALL THE CREDITORS HAVE THEIR PA N AND ARE FILING THEIR TAX RETURNS REGULARLY. AII THE CREDITORS ARE HAVING OTHER INCOME/RECEIPTS FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST ON THE LOANS AFTER DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DEPOS ITED IN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE CREDITORS, COPY OF THEIR INCOME-TAX RETURNS ALO NGWITH COPY OF THEIR BANK STATEMENTS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT WAS PLE ADED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT ALL THE UNSECURED LOANS ARE GENUINE AND TAKEN THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS AND THERE IS NO QUESTION FOR TREATING ANY OF THE CREDITS AS NOT GENUINE. HOWEVER, THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE SUBMISSI ONS AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH COPY OF THE RETURN IN THE CASE OF A LL THE CREDITORS EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF CREDITORS MENTIONED SUPRA. AS REGARD S THE CREDITORS IN WHOSE CASE COPY OF RETURN HAS BEEN FILED, IT WAS NO TICED BY THE A.0. THAT THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETU RN WAS EITHER SALARY RECEIVED OR INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED BY THEM ON THE LOAN ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE SALARY INCOME SHOWN IS N OT SUPPORTED BY ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE EMPLOYER. SIMILARLY, THE INTE REST INCOME DECLARED IS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE AND IN MOST OF THE CASES, THE INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN FOR THE F IRST TIME THAT TOO ON THE LOAN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLAN T. FROM THE 21 STATEMENT RECORDED AND FROM THE ENTRIES IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE INDIVIDUALS, THE VALUE OF TRANSACTION CANNOT BE COR RELATED WITH THE NATURE OF INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN FILED, FURTHER , IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.0. THAT IN MOST OF THE CASES OF THE CREDITORS , VERY LIMITED TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN PLACE THROUGHOUT THE Y EAR AND THE ONLY TRANSACTION OF SUBSTANTIAL DENOMINATION IS RELATED TO THE AMOUNT BEING CREDITED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE PARTIES FROM WHICH THE LOANS WERE ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT PRODUCE ALL THE CREDITORS FOR VERIFICATION. THEREFORE, THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS DUTIES LAID DOWN ON HIM. IN SUPPORT O F THE THIS, THE A.O. HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONOURABLE K ERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OCEANIC PRODUCTS EXPORTING CO. V/S. CIT (2000) 241 ITR 497 (KER.) WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 'AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 68, THE BURDEN IS P LACED ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE A CREDIT APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS O F ACCOUNT. THAT BURDEN HAS TO BE DISCHARGED WITH POSITIVE MATERIAL. WHEN IT IS CONTENDED THAT A PERSON HAS ADVANCED MONEY OR HAD G IVEN A LOAN, IT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE PERSON WAS OF A M AN OF STRAW AND HAD THE CAPACITY TO GIVE THE MONEY. A CONCLUSION R EGARDING CREDITWORTHINESS OR OTHERWISE IS ESSENTIALLY ONE OF THE FACT. IT DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A QUESTION OF LAW UNLESS IT I S ESTABLISHED THAT THE CONCLUSION WAS CONTRARY TO THE MATERIALS ON REC ORD. SECTION 68 GIVES STATUTORY RECOGNITION TO THE PRINCIPLE THA T CASH CREDITS WHICH ARE NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED MAY BE ASSES SED AS INCOME. 22 THE A.O. HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION O F THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. PRECISION FINANCE (P) LTD. 121 CTR (CAL) 20 WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT MERE FURNISHING OF THE PARTICULARS IS NOT ENOUGH. I N VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE A.O. THAT THE IDENTITY O F ALL THE CREDITORS IS SUSPICIOUS AND THE CASH CREDITS APPEAR ING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE BOGUS ADVANCES REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS THEREFORE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 6.1 BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE F OLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS (W.S.) 3.1. THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CO LLECTION OF TOLL TAX, SALES TAX, ROYALTY ON CONTRACT AWARDED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF ANCHAL ASSOCIATE S A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT. 3.2. FOR PERFORMANCE OF SUCH CONTRACTS, THE APPELLA NT REQUIRES ADEQUATE FUNDS FOR DEPOSIT OF EARNEST MONEY, SECURI TY DEPOSIT AND PAYMENT OF ADVANCE INSTALLMENT AS PER TERMS AND CON DITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT. 3.3. DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE APPELLANT (- THE ANCHAR ASSOCIATES PROPRIETOR SHRI BHIM SINHG CHUNDAWAT') H AS BEEN AWARDED THE CONTRACT FOR COLLECTION OF ROYALTY ON CRUSHING OF STONE AND LIMESTONE AND WEIGHTMENT SURCHARGE BY THE MINING DE PARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, UDAIPUR AT RAVDAR TEHSIL S IROHI AND BHADESAR TEHSIL NIMBAHRA (COPIES ENCLOSED). 23 3.4. THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN THE UNSECURED LOANS FR OM THE PERSONS MENTIONED HEREUNDER FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ABOV E AGREEMENT FOR COLLECTION OF SALES TAX AT BADMER, AND COLLECTI ON OF TOLL TAX AT MANGALWAD, MOREL (DISTRICT SWAI MADHOPUR) KHARKA AN D BANSWARA. 3.5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITIONS O F THE FOLLOWING UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF RS. 1 ,94,86,619/- FOR THE VARIOUS REASONS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER: SHRI DAYA RAM NAYAK : RS. 14,06,735/- 3.6. SHRI DAYARAM NAYAK ADVANCED A LOAN OF RS. 14,0 0,000/- TO THE APPELLANT BY SENDING TWO DEMAND DRAFTS OF RS. 9,00, 000/- AND RS. 5,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY DIRECTLY PAYABLE TO MINING ENGINEER SIROHI ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ABOVE AGREEMENT S. 3.7. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE ABOVE LOAN IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLA NT HAS ALSO CREDITED THE INTEREST OF RS. 6,735/ IN THE NAME OF THE LENDE R IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 3.8. THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE REPAYMENT OF RS. 10 ,00,000/-TO THE LENDER AGAINST THE ABOVE LOAN. 3.9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,06,735/- DOUBTING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GEN UINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION. 24 3.10. TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION, THE APPELLANT FILES THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: I. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN II. BANK STATEMENT III. COPY OF THE PAN CARD HAVING NUMBER AGZPN 6290 N 3.11. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LENDER WAS HAV ING INCOME FROM SALARY AND AGRICULTURE INCOME. SINCE HIS TOTAL INCO ME WAS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT AND, THEREFORE HE HAS NOT FILED THE R ETURN OF INCOME DURING THIS YEAR. 3.12.THE LENDER RECEIVED THE INCOME FROM SALARY OF RS.60,000/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 1,50,000/- PER YEAR. 3.13. IT IS VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CO NFIRMATION OF LOAN, AND PAN NUMBERS OF THE LENDER CLEARLY PROVES THE ID ENTITY OF THE LENDER. 3.14. THE PAN NUMBER AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LENDER ALSO CLEARLY PROVES THE IDENTITY OF THE APPELLANT. 3.15. THE LENDER HAS MAINTAINED HIS BANK ACCOUNT NO . 51005054735 WITH SBBJ, SSI BRANCH UDAIPUR. 3.16. THE LENDER HAS BEEN SANCTIONED THE LOAN OF RS . 9,02,000/- AGAINST STDR BY SBBJ, SSI BRANCH, UDAIPUR. HE HAS A LSO RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,00,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT FROM S MT. SAJJAN KANWAR VIDE CHEQUE NO. 360071 DATED 28-02-2006 DRAWN ON SB BJ, SSI BRANCH, UDAIPUR. 25 3.17. THUS HE WAS HAVING ADEQUATE FUNDS WITH HIM BE FORE SENDING THE DIRECT PAYMENT TO MINING ENGINEER SIROHI ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. 3.18. THE LETTER OF CONFIRMATION, BANK STATEMENT AN D PAN NUMBERS OF THE LENDER CLEARLY PROVES THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWO RTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION. 3.19. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO RECORDED DATED 22-12-2008 THE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE AC T (COPY ENCLOSED). 3.20. IN REPLY TO QUESTION 5 OF HIS RECORDED STATEM ENT THAT HE HAS BEEN RECEIVING THE ANNUAL INCOME FROM SALARY OF RS. 60,000/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 1,50,000/- PER YEAR; 3.21. IN REPLY TO QUESTION 6 AND 7 OF HIS RECORDED STATEMENT, THE LENDER HAS STATED THAT HE IS HAVING NO BANK ACCOUNT . 3.22. IN REPLY TO QUESTION 9 OF HIS RECORDED STATEM ENT, THE LENDER HAS ALSO STATED THAT HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY LOAN TO THE A PPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3.23. WHEREAS HE WAS HAVING HIS BANK ACCOUNT BEARIN G NO. 51005054735 IN SBBJ, SSI, BRANCH, UDAIPUR AND HE CA TEGORICALLY CONFIRMED IN THE LETTER OF CONFIRMATION THAT HE HAS GIVEN THE LOAN TO THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT (COPY O F THE CONFIRMATION HAS ALREADY ENCLOSED). 3.24.1N VIEW OF ANOMALOUS STATEMENTS OF THE LENDER, THE VERACITY AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE LENDER CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. 26 3.25.1T IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE STATEME NTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER OATH ARE NOT THE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE UNLESS THEY ARE FURTHER SUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE INCORRECT STATEMENTS DO NOT FORM THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT. OUR SUBMISSIONS ARE WELL SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL DECISI ONS: PULLANGODA RUBBER PRODUCE COMPANY LTD. VS STATE OF KERALA (1973) 91 ITR 18 (S.C.) 3.26. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PLACED ANY CORR OBORATING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE LENDER; THEREFO RE, THE STATEMENTS OF THE LENDER CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT. 3.27. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER HAVE BEEN RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT WITH OUT GIVING HIM ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS, WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CANNOT BE USED IN THE ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 3.28. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE THE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT . 3.29. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETELY DIS CHARGED HIS PRIMARY BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND THE NOW THE BURDEN OF ONUS SHIFTED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE LOAN G IVEN TO THE APPELLANT BY THE LENDER IS BOGUS. 3.30. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECO RD ANY COGENT AND WORTHWHILE MATERIAL TO PROVE THAT THE ABOVE CASH CR EDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. 27 3.31. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISERABLY FAIL ED TO PROVE THAT THE ABOVE LOAN CREDITOR APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE A PPELLANT IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT OF RS. 14,06,735/- IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS UN WARRANTED AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 3.32. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACT THE ADDITION OF LOAN OF RS. 14,06,735/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. SHRI DHANRAJ PATEL : RS.9,65,993/- 4.1. SHRI DHANRAJ PATEL HAS BEEN RECEIVING THE SALA RY OF RS. 99,000/- FROM KALPTARU AND DEV GANGA ENTERPRISES (CERTIFICAT ES ENCLOSED). HE WAS ALSO HAVING THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS .21,000/- AND ANNUAL AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 5O,0OO/- DURING TH E YEAR. 4.2. HE HAS SUBMITTED A TENDER TO THE SALES TAX COL LECTION OF SALES TAX DEPOSITING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 9,50,000/- THROUGH THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 17-10-2OO5 AS AGAINST THE SAID TENDER ARRANGI NG THE FUNDS FROM KNOWN PERSONS. 4.3. THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAS NO T ACCEPTED HIS TENDER AND RETURNED BACK HIS DRAFT OF EARNEST MONEY OF RS. 9,50,000/- ON DATED 12-01-2006 TO HIM. 4.4' THEREAFTER SHRI DHANRAJ PATEL HAS ADVANCED THE INTEREST-BEARING LOAN OF RS. 9,50,000/-TO THE APPELLANT VIDE CHEQUE NUMBER 344166 DATED 14-01-2006 OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT. 4.5. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE ABOVE LOAN IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLA NT HAS ALSO CREDITED THE INTEREST OF RS. 15,993/- IN THE NAME OF THE LEN DER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 28 4.6. THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE REPAYMENT OF RS. 7, 50,000/-TO THE LENDER THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE NO 43021 DATED 31-03-2006 DRAWN ON UNION BANK OF LNDIA, UDAIPUR. 4.7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,65,993/- DOUBTING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GEN UINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION. 4.8. TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION, THE APPELLANT PLACE ON RECORD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: I. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN II. BANK STATEMENT III. INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 4.9. THUS THE LETTER OF CONFIRMATION AND INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE LENDER CLEARLY PROVES THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDER. T HE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE LENDER WAS HAVING CREDITWORTHINESS TO ADVANCE THE LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. THE LOAN HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO THE APPELLANT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE GENUI NENESS OF THE LOAN CANNOT BE DOUBTED 4.10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO RECORDED DATED 22-12-2008 THE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE AC T (COPY ENCLOSED). 4.11. !N REPLY TO QUESTION 9 OF HIS RECORDED STATEM ENT, THE LENDER HAS STATED THAT HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY LOAN TO THE APPELL ANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 29 4.12' WHEREAS HE CATEGORICALLY CONFIRMED IN HIS CON FIRMATION THAT HE HAS GIVEN THE LOAN TO THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT (COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION HAS ALREADY ENCLOSED). TH US THE VERACITY AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. 4.13. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE STATEM ENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER OATH ARE NOT THE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE UNLESS THEY ARE FURTHER SUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER CORROBORATING OR TAN GIBLE EVIDENCE. THE INCORRECT STATEMENTS DO NOT FORM THE BASIS OF T HE ASSESSMENT. OUR SUBMISSIONS ARE WELL SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL DECISIONS: PULLANGODA RUBBER PRODUCE COMPANY LTD. VS STATE OF KERALA (1974) 91 ITR 18 (S.C.) 4.14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PLACED ANY CORR OBORATING AND TANGIBLE EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE STA TEMENTS OF THE LENDER; THEREFORE, THE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER CANN OT BE RELIED UPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT. 4.15.1T IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENTS OF THE LENDER HAVE BEEN RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT WITH OUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS WHICH IS A GAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE STATEMENTS OF THE LENDER CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. 30 4.16. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETELY DIS CHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND THE NOW THE BURDEN OF ONUS SHIFTED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE LOAN G IVEN BY LENDER TO THE APPELLANT IS BOGUS. 4.17. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECO RD ANY COGENT AND WORTHWHILE MATERIAL TO PROVE THAT THE CASH CREDIT A PPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IN NAME OF THE ABOVE LENDER IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. 4.18. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ABOVE LOAN CREDITOR APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE A PPELLANT IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT OF RS. 9,65,993/- IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS LIA BLE TO BE DELETED. 4.19. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACT THE ADDITION OF LOAN OF RS. 9,65,993/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. SHRI GAMER SINGH CHUNDAWAT : RS. 78,45,504/- 5.1. SHRI GAMER SINGH CHUNDAWAT HAS BEEN RECEIVING THE ANNUAL INCOME ABOUT RS. 7,24,000/- PER YEAR FROM SALARY, B USINESS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE IS INCOME TAX ASSESSE E AND REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX IN WARD 1 (2) UDAIPUR. 5.2. SHRI GAMER SINGH CHUNDAWAT ADVANCED THE LOAN O F RS. 78,12,460/- TO THE APPELLANT MAKING DIRECT PAYMENT OF RS, 24,10,000/- TO ASSISTANT MINING ENGINEER, NIMBAHERA AND OTHER TENDERS THROUGH DEMAND DRAFTS AND ACCOUNT PAYEE CHE QUES ON ACCOUNT OF EARNEST MONEY AND SECURITY DEPOSIT AND INSTALMEN T ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 31 5.3. SHRI GAMER SINGH CHUNDAWAT FURTHER ADVANCED TH E LOAN OF RS. 54,00,000/- TO THE APPELLANT VIDE CHEQUE NO. 360082 DATED 28-03- 2006 FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS BUSINESS. 5.4. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE ABOVE LOAN IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLA NT HAS ALSO CREDITED THE INTEREST OF RS. 33,044/- IN THE NAME OF THE LEN DER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 5.5. THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE REPAYMENT OF RS. 19 ,62,460/-TO THE LENDER THROUGH DEMAND DRAFTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 5.6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 78,45,504/- DOUBTING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GEN UINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION. 5.7. TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION, THE APPELLANT FILES THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: I. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN II. BANK STATEMENT III. INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 -05 TO 2006-07 HAVING PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER ABBPC 5409 K. 5.8. THE CONFIRMATION AND BANK STATEMENT AND INCOME TAX RETURN PROVES THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDER. 5.9. THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER SHOWS THAT THE LENDER WAS HAVING THE ADEQUATE FUNDS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS ON T HE DATES ON WHICH HE HAS ADVANCED THE LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. 32 5.10. THUS THE CONFIRMATION, INCOME TAX RETURN AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER CLEARLY PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APP ELLANT. 5.11. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETELY DI SCHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND NOW THE BU RDEN OF ONUS SHIFTED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT TH E LOAN GIVEN BY LENDER TO THE APPELLANT IS BOGUS. 5.12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECO RD ANY COGENT AND WORTHWHILE MATERIAL AND CONCRETE AND TANGIBLE EVIDE NCE TO PROVE THAT THE CASH CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IN NAME OF THE ABOVE LENDER IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. 5.13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ABOVE LOAN CREDITOR APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE A PPELLANT IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT OF RS. 78,45,504/-IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS LIA BLE TO BE DELETED. 5.14. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACT THE ADDITION OF LOAN OF RS. 78,45,504/-MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. SHRI HIMMAT SINGH CHUNDAWAT : RS. 15,10,755/- 6.1 . SHRI HIMMAT SINGH CHUNDAWAT DERIVES HIS INCOM E FROM INTEREST OF RS. 98,146/- PER YEAR. HE IS INCOME TAX ASSESSEE SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 REGULARLY ASSESSED BY ASSESSING OFFICE R, WARD -3 AT PALI. 6.2. HE HAS ALSO RECEIVED ON DATED 06-02-2006 THE O UTSTANDING PAYMENT OF RS. 10,00, 000/- FROM PATEL INFRASTRUCTU RE (P) LTD., ANAND (GUJRAT). 33 6.3. SHRI HIMMAT SINGH CHUNDAWAT ADVANCED THE LOAN OF RS. 15,03,439/- TO THE APPELLANT MAKING DIRECT PAYMENT THROUGH DEMAND DRAFTS IN FAVOUR OF MINING ENGINEER, NIMBAHERA AND BALESAR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. 6.4. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE ABOVE LOAN IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLA NT HAS ALSO CREDITED THE INTEREST OF RS. 7,316/- IN THE NAME OF THE LEND ER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 6.5. THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE REPAYMENT OF RS. 10 ,53,439/-TO THE LENDER THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT 6.6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,10,755/- DOUBTING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GEN UINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION. 6.7. TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION, THE APPELLANT PLACE ON RECORD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: I. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN II. BANK STATEMENT III. INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 -05 TO 2006-07 6.8. THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE LENDER WAS HAVING THE ADEQUATE FUNDS WITH HIM ON THE VARIO US DATES TO ADVANCE THE LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. THE LOAN HAS BEE N ADVANCED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND ITS GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 34 6.9. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETELY DIS CHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND NOW THE BURDEN OF ONUS SHIFTED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE LOAN G IVEN BY LENDER TO THE APPELLANT IS BOGUS. 6.10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECO RD ANY COGENT AND WORTHWHILE MATERIAL AND CONCRETE AND TANGIBLE EVIDE NCE TO PROVE THAT THE CASH CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IN NAME OF THE ABOVE LENDER IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. 6.11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ABOVE LOAN CREDITOR APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE A PPELLANT IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT OF RS. 15,10,755/-IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS LIA BLE TO BE DELETED. 6.12. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACT THE ADDITION OF LOAN OF RS.15,10,755/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIA BLE TO BE DELETED. 6.13. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACT THE ADDITION OF LOAN OF RS. 15,10,755/-MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. SHRI KESAR SINGH RANAWAT : RS. 8,41,934/- 7.1. SHRI KESAR SINGH RANAWAT DERIVES HIS ANNUAL IN COME NEAR ABOUT 1,24,000/-FROM SALARY AND INTEREST. HE ALSO EARNS T HE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE NEAR ABOUT RS. 15,000 TO RS. 20,000/- P ER YEAR. 7.2. SHRI KESAR SINGH RANAWAT ADVANCED THE LOAN OF RS. 4,75,500/- TO THE APPELLANT MAKING DIRECT PAYMENT THROUGH BANK DR AFTS MINING ENGINEER, UDAIPUR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. 35 7.3. HE HAS FURTHER ADVANCED A LOAN OF RS. 3,35,000 /- TO THE APPELLANT VIDE CHEQUE NO. 414502 DATED 24-06-2005 OF RS. 2,60 ,000/-AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 75,000/- WERE TRANSFERRED BY THE LEND ER ON DATED 23- 01-2006 FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF RAJASTHA N UDAIPOLE BUS STAND BRANCH, UDAIPUR. 7.4. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE ABOVE LOAN IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLA NT HAS ALSO CREDITED THE INTEREST OF RS. 31 ,434/- IN THE NAME OF THE LE NDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 7.5. THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE REPAYMENT OF RS. 3, 65,000/-TO THE LENDER THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. 7.6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,41 ,934/- DOUBTING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GEN UINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION. 7.7. TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION, THE APPELLANT PLACE ON RECORD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: I. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN II. BANK STATEMENT III. INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 -07 HAVING NUMBER AGJPR 7838 J 7.8. IT IS VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ABO VE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY PROVES THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDER. 36 7.9. THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE LENDER WAS HAVING THE ADEQUATE FUNDS WITH HIM TO ADVANCE T HE LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. THE LOAN HAS BEEN ADVANCED THROUGH BANKI NG CHANNEL AND ITS GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 7.10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO RECORDED DATED 24-12-2008 THE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE AC T. 7.11. IN REPLY TO QUESTION 5 OF HIS RECORDED STATEM ENT, THE LENDER HAS STATED THAT HE HAS NOT RECOLLECT ABOUT THE LOAN TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HOWEVER HE HAS STATED THAT HE WAS HAVING SOURCE OF INCOME FROM SALARY, AGRICULTUR E INCOME AND MONEY RECEIVED FROM SALE OF HOUSE. 7.12. IN REPLY TO QUESTION 3 OF THE STATEMENT HE HA S ALSO STATED THAT HIS SON IS ALSO EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE SCHOOL AT THE S ALARY OF RS.6,500/- PER MONTH. 7.13. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE STATEM ENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER OATH ARE NOT THE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE UNLESS THEY ARE FURTHER SUPPORTED BY ANY CORROBORATING OR TANGIBLE EVIDENCE. THE INCORRECT STATEMENTS DO NOT FORM THE BASIS OF THE A SSESSMENT. OUR SUBMISSIONS ARE WELL SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUD ICIAL DECISIONS: PULLANGODA RUBBER PRODUCE COMPANY LTD. VS STATE OF KERALA (1975) 91 ITR 18 (S,C.) 7.14. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT P LACED ANY CORROBORATING AND TANGIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE STATEMENTS OF 37 THE LENDER, THEREFORE, THE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. 7.15. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENTS O F THE LENDER HAVE BEEN RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT WITH OUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS- EXAMINE THE WITNESS WHICH IS AGAINST THE NATURAL JUSTICE. THE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER CANNOT BE RELI ED UPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. 7.16. THUS THE CONFIRMATION, INCOME TAX RETURN AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER CLEARLY PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APP ELLANT. 7.17. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETELY DI SCHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND NOW THE BU RDEN OF ONUS SHIFTED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT TH E LOAN GIVEN BY LENDER TO THE APPELLANT IS BOGUS. 7.18. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECO RD ANY COGENT AND WORTHWHILE MATERIAL AND CONCRETE AND TANGIBLE EVIDE NCE TO PROVE THAT THE CASH CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IN NAME OF THE ABOVE LENDER IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. 7.19. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ABOVE LOAN CREDITOR APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE A PPELLANT IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT OF RS. 8,41,924/-IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS LIAB LE TO BE DELETED. 7.20. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACT THE ADDITION OF LOAN OF RS. 8,41,924/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. SHRI KISHORE KUMAR: RS. 9,27,864/- 38 8.1. SHRI KISHORE KUMAR DERIVES HIS ANNUAL INCOME N EAR ABOUT RS.90,000/- FROM SALARY AND INTEREST. HE USED TO SU BMIT SMALL TENDER TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS. 8.2. DURING THE YEAR HE HAS SUBMITTED THE TENDER TO THE SALES TAX. DEPARTMENT FOR COLLECTION OF SALES TAX DEPOSITING T HE AMOUNT OF RS. 9,12,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF EARNEST MONEY ARRANGING TH E FUNDS FROM HIS FRIENDS AND KNOWN PERSONS. 8.3. THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED HIS TENDER AND RETURNED BACK HIS DRAFT OF EARNEST MONEY OF RS. 9,1 2,500/- ON DATED 12-01-2000 TO HIM. 8.4. THEREAFTER HE ADVANCED THE LOAN OF RS. 8,12,00 0/- TO THE APPELLANT VIDE ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE NO. 361406 DATE D 14-01-2006 DRAWN ON SBBJ SSI BRANCH UDAIPUR. 8'5. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE ABOVE LOAN IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLA NT HAS ALSO CREDITED THE INTEREST OF RS. 15,364/- IN THE NAME OF THE LEN DER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 8.6 THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE REPAYMENT OF RS. 5,1 2,000/TO THE LENDERS VIDE CHEQUE NO. 43020 DATED '31-03-2006 DRA WN ON UNION BANK OF INDIA. 8.7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,27,964/- (CORRECT FIGURES ARE RS. 9,27,364/-) DOUBTING THE C REDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS . 39 8.8. TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION, THE APPELLANT PLACE ON RECORD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: I. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN II. BANK STATEMENT 8.9. IT IS VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LE TTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN AND BANK STATEMENT CLEARLY PROVES THE I DENTITY OF THE LENDER. 8. 10. THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER FURTHER SHOW S THAT THE LENDER WAS HAVING THE ADEQUATE FUNDS WITH HIM TO ADVANCE T HE LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. THE LOAN HAS BEEN ADVANCED THROUGH BANKI NG CHANNEL AND ITS GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 8.11. THUS THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY PROVE THE ID ENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF T HE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AND THE ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOAN MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 8.12. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PL ACED ANY CORROBORATING AND TANGIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE STATEMENTS OF THE LENDER, THEREFORE, THE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. 8.13. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENTS O F THE LENDER HAVE BEEN RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT WITH OUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS- EXAMINE THE WITNESS WHICH AGA INST THE NATURAL JUSTICE. THE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER CANNOT BE RELI ED UPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. 40 8.14. THUS THE CONFIRMATION, INCOME TAX RETURN AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER CLEARLY PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APP ELLANT. 8.15. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETELY DI SCHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND NOW THE BU RDEN OF ONUS SHIFTED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT TH E LOAN GIVEN BY LENDER TO THE APPELLANT IS BOGUS. 8.16. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECO RD ANY COGENT AND WORTHWHILE MATERIAL AND CONCRETE AND TANGIBLE EVIDE NCE TO PROVE THAT THE CASH. CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IN NAME ' OF THE ABOVE LENDER IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. 8.17. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ABOVE LOAN CREDITOR APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE A PPELLANT IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT OF RS. 9,27,864 /-IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS LIA BLE TO BE DELETED. 8.18. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACT THE ADDITION OF LOAN OF RS. 9,27,864/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. SHRI MAHENDRA SINGH CHUNDAWAT : RS. 4,06,188/- 9.1. SHRI MAHENDRA SINGH CHUNDAWAT DERIVES HIS ANNU AL INCOME OF RS.1,58,000/- FROM SALARY AND INTEREST SINCE LAST M ORE THAN TWENTY YEARS. 9.2. HE ADVANCED THE LOAN OF RS. 4,00,000/- TO THE APPELLANT MAKING DIRECT PAYMENT THROUGH BANK DRAFTS MINING ENGINEER, NIMBAHERA ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. 41 9.3. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE ABOVE LOAN IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLA NT HAS ALSO CREDITED THE INTEREST OF RS. 5,388/ IN THE NAME OF THE LENDE R IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 9.4. THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE REPAYMENT OF RS. 90 0/- IN CASH ON ACCOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF BANK CHARGES OF DEMAND DRAFT. 9.5. TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION, THE APPELLANT PLACED ON RECORD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: I. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN II. BANK STATEMENT III. INCOME TAX TDS CERTIFICATE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAVING PAN NUMBER ABSPC 854O J 9.6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,06,188/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LENDER. 9.7. IT IS VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ABO VE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY PROVES THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDER. 9.8. THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE LENDER WAS HAVING THE ADEQUATE FUNDS WITH HIM TO ADVANCE T HE LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. 9.9. THE LOAN HAS BEEN ADVANCED THROUGH BANKING CHA NNEL AND ITS GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 42 9.10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO RECORDED DATED 24-12-2008 THE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE AC T. 9.11. IN REPLY TO QUESTION 5 OF HIS RECORDED STATEM ENT, THE LENDER HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT HE HAS GIVEN A LOAN OF RS. 4,00 ,000/- TO THE APPELLANT OUT OF HIS SALARY, ACCUMULATED SAVINGS OF THE 23 YEARS IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. 9.12. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE STATEM ENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER OATH ARE NOT THE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE UNLESS THEY ARE FURTHER SUPPORTED BY ANY CORROBORATING OR TANGIBLE EVIDENCE. THE INCORRECT STATEMENTS DO NOT FORM THE BASIS OF THE A SSESSMENT. OUR SUBMISSIONS ARE WELL SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUD ICIAL DECISIONS: PULLANGODA RUBBER PRODUCE COMPANY LTD. VS STATE OF KERALA (1976) 91 ITR 18 (S.C ) 9.13. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PL ACED ANY CORROBORATING AND TANGIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE STATEMENTS OF THE LENDER, THEREFORE, THE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT, 9.14. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENTS B EEN RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT OPPORTUNITY TO CRO SS- EXAMINE THE WITNESS WHICH JUSTICE. THE STATEMENT OF THE LENDER CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. 9.15. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETELY D ISCHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND NOW THE BU RDEN OF ONUS SHIFTED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT TH E LOAN GIVEN BY LENDER TO THE APPELLANT IS BOGUS. 43 9.16. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECO RD ANY COGENT AND WORTHWHILE MATERIAL AND CONCRETE AND TANGIBLE EVIDE NCE-TO PROVE THAT THE CASH. CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IN NAME OF THE ABOVE LENDER IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. 9.17. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ABOVE LOAN CREDITOR APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE A PPELLANT IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT OF RS.4,06,188/-IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS LIABL E TO BE DELETED. 9.18. THUS THE CONFIRMATION, INCOME TAX TDS CERTIFI CATE AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER CLEARLY PROVE THE IDENTITY A ND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. 9.19. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACT THE ADDITION OF LOAN OF RS.4,06,188/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIAB LE TO BE DELETED. SMT. MANOHAR KUNWAR: RS. 9,15,153/- 10.1. SMT. MANOHAR KANWAR MORE THAN 85 YEARS OLD LA DY AND HOLDING THE IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE LAND MORE THAN 20 BIGHAS. SHE RECEIVES THE AGRICULTURE AND DAIRY INCOME ESTIMATED ABOUT RS.1,2 5,000/- PER YEAR. 10.2. SHE WAS HAVING TERM DEPOSITS IN THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, ALOK SCHOOL, SECTOR-11, UDAIPUR AND HAS TAKEN THE L OAN ON 07-01-2006 OF RS. 14,25,000/-ON THE TERMS DEPOSITS FROM THE SA ID BANK. 10.3. SHE ADVANCED THE LOAN OF RS. 9,00,000/- TO TH E APPELLANT MAKING DIRECT PAYMENT BY DEMAND DRAFT TO THE MINING ENGINE ER SIROHI ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. 44 10.4.THE APPELLANT HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE ABOVE LOAN IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLA NT HAS ALSO CREDITED THE INTEREST OF RS. 15,153/- IN THE NAME OF THE LEN DER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 10.5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION O F RS. 9,15,153/- DOUBTING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GEN UINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION. 10.6 TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION, THE APPELLANT PLACE ON RECORD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: I. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN II. BANK STATEMENT 10.7. IT IS VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE L ETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN AND BANK STATEMENT ABOVE D OCUMENTS CLEARLY PROVES THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDER. 10.8. THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE TENDER WAS HAVING THE ADEQUATE FUNDS WITH HIM TO ADVANCE T HE LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. THE LOAN HAS BEEN ADVANCED THROUGH BANKI NG CHANNEL AND ITS GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 10.9. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETELY DI SCHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND NOW THE BU RDEN OF ONUS SHIFTED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT TH E LOAN GIVEN BY LENDER TO THE APPELLANT IS BOGUS. 45 10.10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON REC ORD ANY COGENT AND WORTHWHILE MATERIAL AND CONCRETE ANY TANGIBLE EVIDE NCE TO PROVE THAT THE CASH CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPEL LANT IN NAME OF THE ABOVE LENDER IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. 10.11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ABOVE LOAN CREDITOR APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE A PPELLANT IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT OF RS. 9,15,1 53/-IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ARE LI ABLE TO BE DELETED. 10.12. THUS THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY PROVE THE I DENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF T HE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AND THE ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOAN MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 10.13. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACT THE ADDITION O F LOAN OF RS. 9,15,153/-MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE T O BE DELETED. SHRI MANOJ KUMAR : RS. 9,13,470/- 11.1 SHRI MANOJ KUMAR IS THE SMALL CONTRACTOR AND W AS HAVING THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF RS. 28,17,000/- AS ON 01-04-2 005 PAYABLE TO HIM WITH MORAL, MANGALWAD AND BANSWARA TOLL TAX PRO JECTS OWNED BY SHRI BHIM SINGH CHUNDAWAT (INDIVIDUAL). 11.2. HE RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 8,00,000/- VIDE CHEQUE NO. 498066 DATED 14-01-2006 OUT OF THE AMOUNT PAYABLE T O HIM FROM THE ABOVE PROJECTS. 11.3. HE ADVANCED THE LOAN OF RS. 8,00,000/- TO THE APPELLANT VIDE ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BEARING NO. 498682 DATED 14-01 -2006 DRAWN ON SBBJ, SSI, BRANCH, UDAIPUR. 46 11.4. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE ABOV E LOAN IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AP PELLANT HAS ALSO CREDITED THE INTEREST OF RS. 1 3,470/- IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 11.5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION O F RS. 8,13,470/- DOUBTING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TENDER AND GEN UINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. 11.6. TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION, THE APPELLANT PLACE ON RECORD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: I. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN II. BANK STATEMENT 11.7. IT IS VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE A BOVE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY PROVES THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDER. 11.8. THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE TENDER FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE LENDER WAS HAVING THE ADEQUATE FUNDS WITH HIM TO ADVANCE T HE LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. THE LOAN HAS BEEN ADVANCED THROUGH BANKI NG CHANNEL AND ITS GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 11.9. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETELY DI SCHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND NOW THE BU RDEN OF ONUS SHIFTED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT TH E LOAN GIVEN BY LENDER TO THE APPELLANT IS BOGUS. 11.10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON REC ORD ANY COGENT AND WORTHWHILE MATERIAL AND CONCRETE AND TAN GIBLE EVIDENCE 47 TO PROVE THAT THE CASH CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOK S OF THE APPELLANT IN NAME OF THE ABOVE LENDER IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. 11.11 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISERABLY FAILED T O PROVE THAT THE ABOVE LOAN CREDITOR APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE A PPELLANT IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT OF RS. 9,15,153/-IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ARE LIA BLE TO BE DELETED. 11.12. THUS THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY PROVE THE I DENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF T HE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AND THE ADDITION ON UNSECURED LOAN MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 11.13. THUS THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY PROVE THE I DENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF T HE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AND THE ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOAN MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 11.14. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACT THE ADDITION O F LOAN OF RS.8,13,470/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIAB LE TO BE DELETED. SMT. PYAR KUNWAR CHUNDAWT : RS. 1,70,388/- 12.1. SMT. PYAR KUNAWR CHUNDAWAT DERIVES HER ANNUAL INCOME 1,61,340/- FROM INTEREST. SHE IS INCOME TAX ASSESSE E AND REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX IN WARD 2(2) AT UDAIPUR. 12.2. SHE WAS HAVING THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF RS. 1,68,000/- PAYABLE TO HIM WITH MANGALWAD TOLL PROJECTS CONTROL LED BY SHRI BHIM SINGH CHUNDAWAT (INDIVIDUAL). 12.3. SHE RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,68,000/- VID E CHEQUE NO.498067 DATED 14-01-2006 DRAWN ON SBBJ SSI BRANCH , UDAIPUR OUT OF THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO HIM FROM THE ABOVE PROJECT. 48 12.4. SHRI PYAR KUNWAR ADVANCED THE LOAN OF RS. 1,7 0,000/- TO THE APPELLANT VIDE ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BEARING NO 4979 81 DATED 6-01- 2006 DRAWN ON SBBJ, SSI, BRANCH, UDAIPUR. 12.5. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE ABOV E LOAN IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AP PELLANT HAS ALSO CREDITED THE INTEREST OF RS. 388/- IN THE NAME OF T HE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 12.6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION O F RS. 1,70,388/- DOUBTING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GEN UINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION. 12.7 . TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS O F THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION, THE APPELLANT PLACE ON RECORD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: I. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN II. BANK STATEMENT III. INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2006-07 12.8. IT IS VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LE TTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN AND BANK STATEMENT CLEARLY PROVES THE I DENTITY OF THE LENDER. 12.9. THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE LENDER WAS HAVING THE ADEQUATE FUNDS WITH HIM TO ADVANCE T HE LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. THE LOAN HAS BEEN ADVANCED THROUGH BANKI NG CHANNEL AND ITS GENUINENESS OF THE ROAN CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 49 12.10. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETELY D ISCHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND NOW THE BU RDEN OF ONUS SHIFTED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT TH E LOAN GIVEN BY LENDER TO THE APPELLANT IS BOGUS. 12.11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON REC ORD ANY COGENT AND WORTHWHILE MATERIAL AND CONCRETE AND TANGIBLE EVIDE NCE TO PROVE THAT THE CASH CREDIT. APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IN NAME OF THE ABOVE TENDER IS 'BOGUS AND NOT REAL. 12.12 .THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISERABLY FAILED T O PROVE THAT THE ABOVE LOAN CREDITOR APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE A PPELLANT IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAIN ED CASH CREDIT OF RS. 1,70,388/- IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ARE LI ABLE TO BE DELETED. 12.13. THUS THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY PROVE THE I DENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TENDER AND GENUINENESS OF T HE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AND THE ADDITION OF- UNSECURED LOAN M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 12.14. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACT THE ADDITION O F LOAN OF RS. 1,70,388/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. SMT. SAJJAN KUNWAR CHUNDAWAT: RS. 3,55,892/- 13.1. SMT. SAJJAN KUNWAR HAVING OUTSTANDING UNSECUR ED LOAN OF RS.5,20,204/- AS ON 31-03-2005 ON MAGALWAD TOLL TAX PROJECT CONTROLLED BY SHRI BHIM SINGH CHUNDAWAT (INDIVIDUAL ). 50 13.2. SHE RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,52,333/- VID E CHEQUE NO. 498068 DATED 16-01-2006 DRAWN ON SBBJ, SSI BRANCH, UDAIPUR OUT OF THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO HER FROM THE ABOVE PROJECT. 13.3. SHE HAS ADVANCED THE LOAN OF RS. 3,50,000/- T O THE APPELLANT VIDE ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BEARING NO. 36068 DATED 1 6-01-2006 DRAWN ON SBBJ, SSI, BRANCH, UDAIPUR. 13.4. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE ABOV E LOAN IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AP PELLANT HAS ALSO CREDITED THE INTEREST OF RS. 5892/- IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 13.5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION O F RS. 3,55,892/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LENDER. 13.6. TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION, THE APPELLANT PLACE ON RECORD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: I. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN II. BANK STATEMENT 13.7 IT IS VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LE TTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN AND BANK STATEMENT CLEARLY PROVES THE I DENTITY OF THE LENDER. 13.8. THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER FURTHER SHOW S THAT THE LENDER WAS HAVING THE ADEQUATE FUNDS WITH HIM TO ADVANCE T HE LOAN TO THE 51 APPELLANT. THE LOAN HAS BEEN ADVANCED THROUGH BANK ING CHANNEL AND ITS GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 13.9. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETELY DI SCHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND NOW THE BU RDEN OF ONUS SHIFTED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT TH E LOAN GIVEN BY LENDER TO THE APPELLANT IS BOGUS. 13.10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON REC ORD ANY COGENT AND WORTHWHILE MATERIAL AND CONCRETE AND TANGIBLE EVIDE NCE TO PROVE THAT THE CASH CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IN NAME OF THE ABOVE LENDER IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. 13.11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISERABLY FAILED T O PROVE THAT THE ABOVE LOAN CREDITOR APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE A PPELLANT IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT OF RS. 3,55,892/-IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ARE LIA BLE TO BE DELETED. 13.12. THUS THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY PROVE THE I DENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF T HE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AND THE ADDITION ON UNSECURED LOAN MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 13.13. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACT THE ADDITION O F LOAN OF RS.3,55,892/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIAB LE TO BE DELETED. M/S SHIVA WINES & TOOLS (PVT.) LTD. : RS. 23,00,000 /- 14.1. THE APPELLANT HAS ADVANCED A LOAN OF RS. 10,0 0,000/, TO M/S SHIVA WINES & TOOLS (PVT.) LTD 52 14.2.M/S SHIVA WINES & TOOLS (PVT.) LTD HAS RETURNE D BACK THE ABOVE LOAN RS. 10,00,000 DATED 06/03/2006 VIDE ACCOUNT PA YEE CHEQUE NO. 170867 DATED 06-03-2006. 14.3. M/S SHIVA WINES & TOOLS (PVT.) LTD ADVANCED A FRESH LOAN OF RS. 13,00,000/- ON DATED O1-02-2006 TO THE APPELLANT VI DE ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES NO. 124778 DATED 01-02-2006 DRAWN..ON KARNA TAKA BANK. 14.4. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE ABOV E LOAN IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 14.5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION O F RS. 23,00,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LENDER. 14.6. TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION, THE APPELLANT PLACE ON RECORD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: I. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN II. INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. III. BALANCE SHEET F.Y. 2005-06. 14.7. IT IS VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE L ETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN AND INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 CLEARLY PROVES THE IDENTITY OF THE LEN DER. 14.8. THE LOAN HAS BEEN ADVANCED THROUGH BANKING CH ANNEL AND ITS GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 53 14.9. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETELY DI SCHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND NOW THE BU RDEN OF ONUS SHIFTED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICE, TO PROVE THAT TH E LOAN GIVEN BY LENDER TO THE APPELLANT IS BOGUS. 14.10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON REC ORD ANY COGENT AND WORTHWHILE MATERIAL AND CONCRETE AND TANGIBLE EVIDE NCE TO PROVE THAT THE CASH CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IN NAME OF THE ABOVE LENDER IS 'BOGUS AND NOT REAL. 14.11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THE ABOVE LOAN CRE DITOR APPEARING IN BOGUS AND NOT REAL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF UNEX PLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS. 23,00,000/-IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELL ANT ARE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 14.12. THUS THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY PROVE THE I DENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF T HE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AND THE ADDITION ON UNSECURED LOAN MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 14.13. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACT THE ADDITION O F LOAN OF RS. 23,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. SHRI UDAI SINGH RANAWAT. : RS. 9,65,993/- 15.1. SHRI UDAI SINGH RANAWAT DERIVES THE INCOME OF RS. 1,42,846/- FORM INTEREST AND SALARY. HE IS SMALL CONTRACTOR AN D SUBMITTED HIS TENDER AT SALES DEPARTMENT FOR COLLECTION OF SALES TAX DEPOSITING RS. 9,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EARNEST MONEY THROUGH THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 17-10-2005 AGAINST THE SAID TENDER ARRANGING THE FUNDS FROM HIS FRIENDS AND KNOWN PERSONS. 54 15.2.THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED HIS TEND ER AND RETURNED BACK HIS DRAFT OF EARNEST MONEY OF RS. 9,50,000/- O N DATED 12-01-2006 TO HIM. 15.3. THEREAFTER, HE HAS ADVANCED THE LOAN OF RS 9, 50,000/- TO THE APPELLANT VIDE ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BEARING NO. 346 624 DATED 14-01- 2006 DRAWN ON SBBJ, SSI, BRANCH, UDAIPUR. 15.4. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE ABOV E LOAN IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AP PELLANT HAS ALSO CREDITED THE INTEREST OF RS. 15,993/- IN THE NAME O F THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 15.5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION O F RS. 9,65,993/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LENDER 15.6. TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION, THE APPELLANT PLACE ON RECORD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: I. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN II. BANK STATEMENT III. RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 15.7. IT IS VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LE TTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN AND THE BANK STATEMENT CLEARLY PROVES T HE IDENTITY OF THE LENDER. 15.8. THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE LENDER WAS HAVING THE ADEQUATE FUNDS WITH HIM TO ADVANCE T HE LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. THE LOAN HAS BEEN ADVANCED THROUGH BANKI NG CHANNEL AND ITS GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 55 15.9. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETELY DI SCHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND NOW THE BU RDEN OF ONUS SHIFTED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT TH E LOAN GIVEN BY LENDER TO THE APPELLANT IS BOGUS. 15.10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON REC ORD ANY COGENT AND WORTHWHILE MATERIAL AND CONCRETE AND TANGIBLE EVIDE NCE TO PROVE THAT THE CASH CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IN NAME OF THE ABOVE LENDER IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. 15.11 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ABOVE LOAN CREDITOR APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE A PPELLANT IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT OF RS. 9,65,993/- IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS LIA BLE TO BE DELETED. 15.12 THUS THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY PROVE THE ID ENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF T HE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AND THE ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOAN MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 15.13. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACT THE ADDITION OF LOAN OF RS. 9,65,993/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. SHRI UDAI SINGH SOLANKI :RS. 60,750/- 16.1. SHRI UDAI SINGH SOLANKI DERIVES ANNUAL INCOME FROM SALARY AND INTEREST NEAR ABOUT RS. 1 ,20,430/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 16.2. HE ADVANCED THE LOAN OF RS. 50,000/- TO THE A PPELLANT VIDE ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BEARING NO. 343986 DATED 2-02- 2006 DRAWN ON UNION BANK INDIA, UDAIPUR. 56 16.3. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE ABOV E LOAN IN THE NAME OF THE LENDER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AP PELLANT HAS ALSO CREDITED THE INTEREST OF RS. 750 /-. 16.4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION O F RS. 60,750/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LENDER. 16.5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INCORRECTLY ADDED T HE FIGURES OF RS. 60,750/- WHEREAS THE LENDER HAS ADVANCED OF RS. 50, 750'/-ONLY TO THE APPELLANT. 16.6. TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION, THE APPELLANT PLACE ON RECORD THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: I. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN II. BANK STATEMENT III. RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 16.7. IT IS VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE AB OVE CLEARLY PROVES THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDER. 16.8. THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDER FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE LENDER WAS HAVING THE ADEQUATE FUNDS WITH HIM TO ADVANCE T HE LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. THE LOAN HAS BEEN ADVANCED THROUGH BANKI NG CHANNEL AND ITS GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 16.9. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETELY DI SCHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND NOW THE BU RDEN OF ONUS SHIFTED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT TH E LOAN GIVEN BY LENDER TO THE APPELLANT IS BOGUS. 57 16.10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON REC ORD ANY COGENT AND WORTHWHILE MATERIAL AND CONCRETE AND TANGIBLE EVIDE NCE TO PROVE THAT THE CASH CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IN NAME OF THE ABOVE LENDER IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. 16.11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISERABLY FAILED T O PROVE THAT THE ABOVE LOAN CREDITOR APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE A PPELLANT IS BOGUS AND NOT REAL. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT OF RS. 60,750/- IN THE HAND OF THE APPELLANT IS LIABL E TO BE DELETED. 16.12 THUS THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY PROVE THE ID ENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF T HE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AND THE ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOAN MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 16.13. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACT THE ADDITION O F LOAN OF RS. 60,750/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 17.1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE A PPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED THE CASH CREDITORS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER EXCEPT FEW CASH CREDITORS FOR HIS EXAMINATION AND THEREFORE, T HE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. 17.2 THE APPELLANT VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT T HAT GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE DOUBTED ON MERE NON -PRODUCTION OF WITNESSES AND NO ADDITION OF LOAN CAN BE MADE TO TH E RETURNED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT TREATING THE LOAN TRANSACTI ON AS NON-GENUINE MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT PRO DUCED THE LENDERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. OUR RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL DECISIONS FOR THIS PURPOSE: 58 CIT VS U.M SHAH, PROPRIETOR SHRENIK TRADING CO., (1973) 90 ITR 390 (BOM.) NATIONAL FEED STORE VS. DCIT (1990) 88 TAXMANN I1 (CHD.) HERTZ & WAVES ENGINEERS (P) LTD. VS. CIT (1992) 42 ITD 558 (HYD-T) JAGDISH OIL MILL VS, ITO (1995) 82 TAXMANN 67 (INDORE-T) MANGA RAM DEO MALVS. IT0 (1977) 8 TTJ 405 (JP-T) ITO VS. HINDUSTAN COLD STORAGE & REFRIGERATION CO. (1984) 19 TTJ 467 (DEL-T) BHADAMAL HAZARI MAL VS. ITO (178) 5 TTJ 297 ((GAU-T). ACIT VS. GLAXY KNIVES (P) LTD. (LTA NO. 2105 (MUM-T) 17.3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER OBSERVED TH AT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. 17 .4. THE APPELLANT VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT HE HAS PRODUCED THE LETTER OF CONFIRMATION, BANK STATEMENTS AND RET URN OF INCOME WHENEVER THEY WERE AVAILABLE IN THE ABOVE CASH CRED ITORS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT AND SATISFACTORILY PR OVED THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. OUR RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE F OLLOWING JUDICIAL DECISION FOR THIS PURPOSE: 59 DCIT VS. ROHINI BUILDERS (2002) 256 ITR 360 (GUJ.) 17.5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER OBSERVED TH AT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THEIR SOURCES WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. 17.6. THE APPELLANT VERY HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT HE HAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THEIR SOURCES WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CES IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE LOAN CREDITORS. 17.7. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVE THE SOUR CE OF SOURCE OR ORIGIN OF ORIGIN IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE LOAN CREDI TORS AS THE SAME IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 17.8. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE APPEL LANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE OR ORIGIN OF ORIGIN . OUR RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL DECISIONS FOR THIS PURPOSES: S. HASTIMALVS. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273 (MAD. ) DAULAT RAM RAWATMULL (1973 ) 87 ITR 349 (SC) SAROGI CREDIT CORPN. (1976 ) 103 ITR 344 SHRISURINDRA SINGH (1993) 113 TAXATION 11 (JPAT) TOLARAM DAGA VS. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (ASSAM) 17.9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER OBSERVED TH AT THE VARIOUS AND OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED REVEALS THAT THE LOANS 60 RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IN FACT BOGUS IN NATURE A ND ACTUALLY BELONGS TO THE APPELLANT HIMSELF WHICH WERE ROUTED THROUGH THE ABOVE PARTIES. 17.10. THE APPELLANTS VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THA T HE IS HAVING VARIOUS PROJECTS UNITS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF SHR I BHIM SINGH CHUNDAWAT, -HAVING THEIR INDEPENDENT STATUS, EXISTE NCE AND ENTITY. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF EVERY PROJECT IS ALSO MAIN TAINED SEPARATELY SHOWING THE PROFIT AND LOSS AND CASH CREDITS OF EAC H UNIT SEPARATELY. - 17 .11. SOME OF THE CASH CREDITORS WERE HAVING THEI R INTEREST BEARING OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF LOAN CREDITS IN THE PARTICUL AR PROJECT/UNIT IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY LENDER BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND HE DEPOSITS SOME OF THE AM OUNT OF SUCH WITHDRAWAL IN SOME OTHER UNITS CONTROLLED BY SHRI B HIM SINGH CHUNDAWAT, IN SUCH CASES IT IS PATENTLY ERRONEOUS T O INFER AND/OR PRESUME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE LOANS REC EIVED BY THE APPELLANT IN FACT BOGUS IN NATURE AND ACTUALLY BELO NGS TO THE APPELLANT HIMSELF WHICH WERE ROUTED THROUGH THE ABO VE PARTIES. 17.12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SOME OF THE CREDITORS HAVE WITHDRAWN THEIR AMOUNT OF THEIR PREVIOUS YEAR'S LOAN FROM ONE PROJECT AND DEPOSITED SAME IN ANCHAL ASSOCIATE BY THE LENDER DU RING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ROUTED HIS OWN MONEY THROUGH THE ABOVE PARTIES. 17.13. THE OBSERVATION, FINDINGS AND ALLEGATIONS MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE TOTALLY INCORRECT AND THE INF ERENCE ,OR CONCLUSIONS DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF SUCH FINDINGS ARE TOTALLY INCORRECT AND PATENTLY ERRONEOUS AND BASED ON MERE ASSUMPTION , PRESUMPTION, PURE GUESS, DOUBTS, AND SUSPICION, FICTITIOUS, WITH OUT ANY TANGIBLE 61 EVIDENCE AND IRRELEVANT EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS A ND, THEREFORE, THE SUCH OBSERVATION, FINDINGS AND ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 17.14. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS SUCC ESSFULLY DISCHARGED HIS BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM UNDER SECTION 68 O F THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN OF ONUS SIFTED UPON HIM AND, THEREFORE, ADDITION OF CASH CREDITS MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNWARRANTED AND NON-SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AS W ELL AS FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SAME ARE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 17.15. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS SUCCESSFULLY DISCHAR GED HIS BURDEN OF ONUS CAST UPON HIM UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, THE REFORE, THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAVE NO APPLICATION ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 17.16. FOR THE VARIOUS REASONS STATED ABOVE THE APP ELLANT STATES THAT THE ADDITION OF CASH CREDITS OF RS. 1,04,86,619/-MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ARBITRARY, FICTITIOUS MALAFIDE AND TOTAL LY INCORRECT AND ERRONEOUS AND THE SAME ARE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 18.1. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS OF DEFENCE, THE APPELLANT VERY HUMBLY PRAYS TO YOUR HONOUR TO KINDLY : I. QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31-12-2008 AS B EING AB-INITIO VOID, ILLEGAL AND /OR IN OPERATIVE. II. QUASH THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 1,04,86 ,619/- AS BEING ARBITRARY, FICTITIOUS, ILLEGAL AND AB-INITIO VOID. 62 III. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS MAY BE DEEM ED FIT AND PROPER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT VIDE H IS LETTER DATED 06.10.2012 FILED APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES,1962 ENCLOSING THEREWITH SOME EVIDENCE WHICH HAS BEEN CL AIMED TO BE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS THE SAME COULD NOT BE FURNIS HED BEFORE THE A.0. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT AND IT HAS BEEN REQUES TED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED UNDER SUBSECTION 4 AND 5 OF SECTION 250 OF THE ACT AS ALL THE EVIDENCES ARE RELEVANT FOR THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL. A COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONGWITH ITS ENCLOSURES WAS SENT TO THE A.O. FOR HIS COMMENTS/REPORT ON THE ADMISSIBILITY O F THE EVIDENCE AND ON MERITS OF THE EVIDENCES. 6.2 THE LD. CIT(A) REMANDED THE ABOVE WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS TO A.O. AND CALLED FOR HIS REPORT. THE A.O. SENT HIS REPORT D ATED 21/02/2011 STATING AS UNDER :- ' IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PERMISSION SOUGHT FOR BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I. T. RULES IS NOT PERMISSIBLE BY LAW AS SUFFICIENT AND AMPLE OPPORTUN ITIES WERE ACCORDED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS /CLARIFICATION/EVIDENCES BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS TO THE CASE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN HIS APPLIC ATION UNDER RULE 46A MADE BEFORE YOUR HONOR STATED THAT THE A0 HAS PASSE D THE ORDER APPEAL AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCES RELEVANT TO THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL. THE ASSESSEE 63 HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THAT A0 REQUIRED THE APP ELLANT VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 19.12.2008 TO PRODUCE BEFORE HIM THE LOAN CREDITORS WITH ALL SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AND DOCUMEN TS TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH AND AS PER THE ASSESSMENT RECORD S SUFFICIENT AND AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSES SEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO ADDUCE THE EVID ENCES BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. THE ASSESSEE WAS VIDE NOTICE U/S.142(1) DATED 14.08.2008 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASS ESSEE ON 22.02.2008 REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING DETAI LS VIDE POINT NO.7 & 8 OF THE SAID NOTICE. FURNISH THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE UNSECURED LOANS, ALSO FURNISH THE RESPECTIVE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS PA RTIES FROM WHOM THE UNSECURED LOANS WERE ACQUIRED. IN THE CASE OF U NSECURED LOANS ACQUIRED DURING THE YEAR FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION, COPY OF RETURN, BALANCE SHEET OF THE PARTIES, MODE OF RECEIPT OF TH E LOAN SPECIFYING CHEQUE NO. IF RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE. IN THE CASE OF FOLLOWING PARTIES, FURNISH THE CONFI RMATION, COPY OF RETURN COMPLETE ENCLOSURES, WHERE THE RETURN IS FIL ED: 1. DAYA RAM NAYAK. 2. DHANRAJ PATEL. 3. GAMER SINGHCHUNDAWAT 4. HIMMAT SINGH CHUNDAWAT, 5. MAHENDRA SINGH CHUNDAWAT. 6. MANOHAR KUNWAR. 7. KISHORE GARASIYA 8. SHIVA WINES & TOOLS PVT. LD. 9. UDAI SINGH RANAWAT. 64 THEREAFTER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS VIDE THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 15.09.2008, 20 .11.2008, 27.11.2008, 12.12.2008, 19.12.2008, 22.12.2008, 24. 12.2008, 26.12.2008, 29.12.2008 GIVEN FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS, EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN OF IN COME FILED BY HIM. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 31.12.2009 AND THOU GH THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN PROVIDED WITH MORE THAN 16 MONTHS TO SUBMI T THESE EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO AND NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE SAME BEFORE YOUR HONOUR A S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THA T REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH AND CONTRARY TO T HE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ALL THE DEPOSITORS EVEN THOUGH SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED BY THE A0 THE ASSESSE E PRODUCED ONLY SOME OF THE DEPOSITORS WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE RECORD ED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER THE A0 MADE ADDITION U/ S.68 AS THE DEPOSITORS CLEARLY DENIED THAT THEY HAD GIVEN ANY L OAN/DEPOSIT TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPOSITORS WERE ALSO UNABLE TO EXP LAIN THE SOURCE OF CREDIT ENTRIES IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS. DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDING THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO PRODUCE THE DEPOSITORS , B UT ONCE AGAIN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE DEPOSITORS DU RING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS. IT IS THEREFORE ONCE AGAIN REQ UESTED THAT THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE ADMIT TED UNDER RULE 46A. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE DEPOSI TORS BEFORE THE 65 UNDERSIGNED ALONGWITH THE ORIGINAL SUPPORTING EVIDE NCES AND DOCUMENTS THE TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE DEPOSITORS IS NOT VERIFIABLE. THUS, ONCE AGAIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS EVEN THOUGH FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO HIM DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE VARIOUS FACTORS AND OUTCOMES OF THE INVESTIGATI ON CONDUCTED HAS REVEALED THAT THE LOANS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WE RE IN FACT BOGUS IN THE NATURE AND MONEY ACTUALLY BELONGED TO THE ASSES SEE HIMSELF WHICH WAS ROUTED THROUGH THE PARTIES IN WHOSE NAME THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE LOAN/DEPOSIT. THE FINDINGS OF THE A.0. HA VE BEEN NARRATED IN DETAIL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2008 AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOW PRODUCED BY THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE YOUR HONOR, THE FINDINGS NARRATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R STILL REMAIN TRUE AND CORRECT, MOREOVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF RE TURN OF INCOME OF THE DEPOSITS NOW PRODUCED BEFORE YOUR HONOR IT IS N OTICED THAT THESE PERSONS ARE MAINLY DERIVING INCOME FROM SALARY OR I NCOME AS PARTNERS OF REGISTERED FIRMS. THEREFORE, THE CREDIT WORTHINE SS OF THESE PERSONS TO ADVANCE HUGE SUMS OF MONEY AS LOAN /DEPOSIT IS N OT ESTABLISHED AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IS ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN NARRATED IN DETAIL AND IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A ND IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED IN THE REMAND REPORT, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT OF RS. 1,94,86,619/- MAY KIN DLY BE CONFIRMED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS LA ID DOWN UPON HIM BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 68 OF THE ACT T O PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITORS, THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 66 A COPY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED REMAND REPORT WAS PR OVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT HIS EXPLANATION ON THE REMAND RE PORT. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED HIS REPLY VIDE LET TER DATED 29.03.2011 WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE APPELLANT. 6.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT THE LD. CI T(A) DISCUSSED EACH AND EVERY CASH CREDITOR IN PARA 2.3 PAGE NOS. 49 TO 60 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND HAS FOUND FOLLOWING CREDITORS AS GENUINE :- (I) SHRI DHANRAJ PATEL. (II) SHRI GAMER SINGH (III) SHRI HIMMAT SINGH (IV) M/S. SHIV WINE AND TOOLS PVT. LTD. (V) SH. DAYA RAM NAYAK. (VI) SHRI KESAR SINGH RANAWAT (VII) SHRI KISHORE KUAMR (VIII) SHRI MAHENDRA SINGH (IX) CHRI CHUNDAWAT (X) SHRI MANOHAR KUMAR (XI) SHRI UDAI SINGH RANAWAT (XII) SHRI UDAI SINGH SOLANKI. 6.4 BOTH PARTIES HAVE REITERATED THEIR EARLIER STAN D BEFORE US. THE LD. D.R.S HAVE ARGUED THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ABOVE CREDITORS HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED ON RECORD. HE HAS REPEATED THE REA SONS FOR MAKING ADDITIONS BY THE A.O. ON THE OTHER HAD LD. A.R. HAS RELIED ON HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION, R.R. OF THE A.O. AND THE FINDING GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A). 67 6.5 AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL STANDS WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE IDENTITY OF ALL THE ABOVE CREDITORS IS PROVED ON RECORD. THE GENUIN ITY OF THE TRANSACTION IS ESTABLISHED SHORT OF THE FACT THAT IF THEIR CREDITW ORTHINESS IS NOT ESTABLISHED THE GENUINITY OF TRANSACTION WOULD BE THEN JEOPARDI ZED. HOWEVER, WHEN WE HAVE TREADED THROUGH EACH AND EVERY OF THE ABOVE CR EDITORS, WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THEIR CREDIT WORTHINES S TO THE EXTENT HE IS OBLIGED UNDER THE LAW TO DO SO. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BURDENED WITH THE PROOF OF SOURCE OF THE SOURCE. WE WOULD NOT LIKE TO REPEAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED CASH C REDITORS. BUT THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISLODGE THE REASONS GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A). ALL THE ABOVE CREDITORS HAVE ACCEPTED THAT THEY HAD ADVANCED THEI R RESPECTIVE CREDITS TO THE ASSESSEE. THEY HAVE ALSO EXPLAINED TOWARDS GENU INENESS OF THEIR TRANSACTION AND HAVE ALSO DETAILED THEIR SOURCES OF THESE DEPOSITS. SANCTIONING HERE AND THERE BEING NOT EXPLAINED TO T HE HILT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A PROOF OF INGENUINITY OF THE TRANSACTION. IN AN Y CASE THESE AMOUNTS CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE DEPOSITORS AS PER THE LAW. IT WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFY TO DUB THEM AS INGENUINE ON ACCOUNT OF REQU IRED INGREDIENTS STRETCHED TOO FAR ON BOTH SIDES. ACCORDINGLY, WE UP HOLD THE IMPUGNED DELETION AND CANNOT ALLOW THIS ISSUE IN THE FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. IT WAS CONVEYED TO THE BENCH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIL ED HIS APPEAL AGAINST SUSTAINED PART OF CASH CREDITORS. 68 7. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 78/JODH/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 IS DISMISSED. 8. TO SUM UP BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH AUGUST, 2013. SD/- SD/- [N.K. SAINI] [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH AUGUST, 2013. VL/ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT BY ORDER 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR