Associated Tradecon Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The DCIT, C-Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 815/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9385 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 40A(3); 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 133(6); 113

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.815/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10) ASSOCIATED TRADECON (P) LTD., A/3 BHURABHAI COMPLEX, NR. UJALA CIRCLE, SARKHEJ, AHMEDABAD APPELLANT VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT PAN: AAHCA3307L /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI SUNIL TALATI, A.R. /BY REVENUE : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 19.01.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.01.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARISES AGAINST THE CIT(A)-II, AHMEDABADS ORDER DATED 12.01.2014 IN AP PEAL NO. CIT(A)- II/DCIT CI-1/237/2013-14, UPHOLDING ASSESSING OFFIC ERS ACTION ADDING TWO CASH DEPOSIT SUMS OF RS.1,34,70,822/- & RS.6,00,000 /- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S.68, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. ITA NO. 815/AHD/2014 (ASSOCIATED TRADECON (P). LTD. VS. DCIT) A.Y. 2009-10 - 2 - 2. WE COME TO ASSESSEES FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND CHALLENGING ACTION OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN ADDING CASH DEPOSI TS OF RS.1,34,70,822/- IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THIS ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY TRADING IN FERROUS AND NON FERROUS METAL. ITS CASH BOOK REVEALED TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH AMOUNTS OF RS.1,34,70,822/- IN Q UESTION FROM M/S. ACCOST IMPEX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT ITS EXPLANATIO N QUA THE SOURCE THEREOF. THE ASSESSEES REPLY CAME ON 04.10.2011 ALONG WITH LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE STATED PAYEE ENTITY. IT PLEADED TO HAVE RECE IVED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S . METAL ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. IN LIEU OF VARIOUS GOODS SUPPLIED. THE ASSESSEE FU RTHER PLEADED TO HAVE PAID THE AMOUNT COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF ITS SISTER CONCER N TO THE VERY ENTITY ON THE SAME DAY OF THE SAID SUMS BEING CREDITED IN ITS ACC OUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN SOUGHT TO TREAT THE ABOVE CASH CREDITS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSEES LATTER REPLY DATED 12.12. 2011 REITERATED ITS EARLIER SUBMISSION. THIS MADE THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTER ALIA TO OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEES ABOVE REASONING OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF IT S CASH CREDITS LACKED GENUINENESS SINCE THERE WAS NO REASON AS TO WHY THE PAYEE ENTITY WOULD NOT MAKE PAYMENT TO ITS SELLER THAN CREDITING THE VERY SUMS IN CASH TO SISTER CONCERN. HE FURTHER NOTED THE ASSESSEE NOT TO HAVE FILED EVEN A CONFIRMATION OF THE PAYEE ENTITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO IS SUED SECTION 133(6) NOTICE TO THE ALLEGED PAYEE ENTITY WHICH WAS RETURNED BACK . HE THEN SOUGHT FURTHER EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE WHICH NEVER CAME. TH E ASSESSING AUTHORITY INVOKED SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCE S FOR ADDING THE CASH CREDITS IN QUESTION OF RS.1,34,70,822/- AS UNEXPLAI NED IN NATURE. 3. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL. THE CIT(A) UPHOL DS ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION AS UNDER: 1. THE MAIN GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,34,70,822/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT BEING CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AS UN EXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ITA NO. 815/AHD/2014 (ASSOCIATED TRADECON (P). LTD. VS. DCIT) A.Y. 2009-10 - 3 - U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FOR WHICH APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT AT ALL IN TRE ATING THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AS THE SAME ARE GENUINE TRANSACTIONS, WHICH ARE HEREBY EXPLAINED AS UNDER: THE SISTER CONCERN OF APPELLANT I.E. METAL ENTERPRI SE PVT LTD. SOLD THE GOODS TO ACCOST IMPLEX PVT. LTD. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 WORTH RS. 8,28,90,027 OUT OF WHICH APPELLANT COMPANY COLL ECTED THE PROCEEDS OF SALE CONSIDERATION AMOUNTING RS. 1,33,05,000/-FROM THE ACCOST IMPLEX PVT. LTD. MERELY AS COLLECTING AGENT AND REMITTED THE SA ID AMOUNT TO METAL ENTERPRISE PVT LTD. AS AND WHEN RECEIVED BY APPELLA NT COMPANY. MOREOVER THERE ARE NO CHARGES BEING COLLECTED FROM METAL ENT ERPRISE PVT LTD BY APPELLANT COMPANY. COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ACCOST IMPEX PVT. LTD. IN BOOKS OF METAL ENTERPRISE PVT LTD IS ENCLOSED HEREW ITH AS PER PAGE NO. 1 AND 2 ALONG WITH RESPECTIVE SALE INVOICES(AS PER EX HIBIT-I). THE SAID EVIDENCES CLEARLY SUPPORTS ABOUT THE BUSINESS TRANS ACTIONS CARRIED ON BETWEEN ACCOST IMPLEX PVT LTD AND METAL ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. ALSO CONFIRMATION FROM METAL ENTERPRISES PVT LTD (HEREBY ATTACHED AS PER PAGE NO. 3 AND 4) CONFIRMING DETAILS OF COLLECTION MADE BY APPELLANT FROM ACCOST IMPLEX PVT LTD. ON BEHALF OF METAL ENTERPRIS ES PVT LTD MOREOVER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ACCOST IMPEX PVT. LTD. IN BOOKS O F APPELLANT IS ALSO ATTACHED HEREWITH AS PER PAGE NO. 5 TO 11 ALONGWITH THE BANK STATEMENT COPY SHOWING COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT OF REMI TTANCE BY APPELLANT TO ITS SISTER CONCERN METAL ENTERPRISE PVT LTD. ON THE SAME DAY OF ITS RECEIPT. SUCH EXPLANATIONS ABOUT THE GENUINE BUSINESS TRANSA CTIONS IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES BE TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED CASH CREDIT S. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE DISCHARGES ITS ONUS IN RESP ECT OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF SECTION 68 OF INCOME TEA ACT. THUS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDIT ION OF RS.1,33,05,000/- BE DELETED. IN CONTINUATION OF THE HEARING AND WRITTEN SUBMISSI ON FILED ON 9TH DECEMBER, 2013 AND IN RESPONSE TO YOUR HONOUR'S QUERY ABOUT THE GE NUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND RECOVERY OF SUCH SALE IN CASH THE APPEL LANT HAS TO RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT AS UNDER. 1. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY I.E. ASSOCIATED TRADECOM PV T. LTD., IS THE SISTER CONCERN OF ONE METAL ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. T HE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND METAL ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD ., ARE SAME AND IDENTICAL. PROOF OF THE SAME IS ENCLOSED HEREWI TH BY WAY OF COPY OF ARTICLE & MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF BOTH THE COMPANIES (PAGE 1 TO 50) AND EXTRACTS OF MASTER DAT A WITH REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES. (PAGE 51 TO 53 ) 2. THE FACT THAT SAID SISTER-CONCERN METAL ENTERPRI SE PVT. LTD., HAD SOLD GOODS I.E. METALS, STAINLESS' STEEL PRODUCTS T O ONE ACCOST IMPLEX PVT. LTD., IS NOT DOUBTED AND IS NOT IN DISP UTE. COPIES OF SALES, INVOICES HAVE ALREADY BEEN FILED. ITA NO. 815/AHD/2014 (ASSOCIATED TRADECON (P). LTD. VS. DCIT) A.Y. 2009-10 - 4 - 3. ACCOST IMPLEX PVT. LTD., IS A COMPANY REGISTERE D UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND IF HAVING ITS REGISTRATION IS PRO VED THEREFORE FROM THE EXTRACT OF MASTER DATA THROUGH OFFICE OF R EGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AS PER (PAGE 54 AND 55) 4. THE SAID ACCOST IMPEX PVT. LTD., HAD PURCHASED THE GOODS AND ACCOUNTED THE SAME IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS ALSO CONCLUSIVELY PROVED FROM THE COPY OF MONTHLY RETURN FILED UNDER GUJARAT VALUED ADDED TAX ACT. COPY OF THE RETURN SHOWING THE PURCH ASES BY THE SAID FROM THE METAL ENTERPRISE IS ENCLOSED ON PAGE 56 TO 70. THUS THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALES MADE BY METAL ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. AND PURCHASES MADE BY ACCOST IMPEX PVT. LTD., IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT. CONSEQUENTLY ACCOST IMPEX PVT. LTD., WAS DEBTOR AND WAS REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THE PURCHASES MADE FROM METAL ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD., IS ALSO CONCLUSIVELY PROVED. 5. NOW THE ONLY QUESTION IS THAT SAID ACCOST IMPEX PVT. LTD., INSTEAD OF MAKING PAYMENT TO METAL ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. PAID T O THE APPELLANT COMPANY I.E. ASSOCIATED CO. PVT. LTD., BECAUSE OF S EVERE DISPUTE BETWEEN THEM. THE SAID PARTY ACCOST IMPEX PVT LTD., WAS NOT PAYING THE AMOUNT DUE TO METAL ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD., AND T HE SOME OF THE CHEQUES ISSUED HAD BOUNCED BACK. THE SAID PARTY AND METAL ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD., THEREFORE, HAD SEVERE DISPUTE D AND HAD FIGHT ALSO. 6. BECAUSE OF SUCH DISPUTES AND FIGHT, ACCOST IMPLE X PVT. LTD., REFUSED TO PAY ANYTHING TO METAL ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. THERE FORE, ASSOCIATED TRADECOM PVT. LTD, USED ITS GOOD OFFICERS, NEGOTIAT ED AND, CONVINCED THE SAID DEBTOR ACCOST IMPLEX PVT. LTD., TO PAY WHATEVER IT CAN SLOWLY AND GRADUALLY IN CASH. IN OTHER WORDS , THE APPELLANT ACTED AS MEDIATOR/ARBITRATOR. 7. THEREFORE, ON PURSUANCE AND CONSISTENT FOLLOW U P THE APPELLANT COMPANY IT RECOVERED CASH FROM ACCOST IMPEX PVT. LT D., DEPOSITING THE SAME IN ITS BANK AND IMMEDIATELY ISSUING THE CH EQUE TO METAL ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS ARRANGEM ENT THE APPELLANT COMPANY RECEIVED THE CASH IN SHAPE OF SLOW RECOVERY OF, SALE PROCEEDS OF METAL ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. AS SUCH THIS IS NOT AT ALL UNACCOUNTED CASH CREDIT OR UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT . THE A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF SUCH CASH RECEIPTS AS INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT WHICH IS TOTALLY INCORRECT IN FA CTS AND ON LAW. THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTY GIVIN G CASH. THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED CAPACITY OF THE SAID COMPANY BE ING REGISTERED COMPANY HAVING FILED ITS RETURN AND HAVING ITS OWN ESTABLISHMENT IS ALSO PROVED. LAST AND THE THIRD INGREDIENT OF GENUI NENESS IS ALSO PROVED BEYOND DOUBT AS ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED TH E CASH AS WELL AS RECOVERY OF ITS SISTER CONCERN METAL ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. IN VIEW OF THIS, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED AND DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO FULLEST EXTENT ADDITION U/S. 68 CANNOT BE MADE. ITA NO. 815/AHD/2014 (ASSOCIATED TRADECON (P). LTD. VS. DCIT) A.Y. 2009-10 - 5 - THE APPELLANT RELIES ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS; (1) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BH ANWARLAL SHARMA REPORTED IN 32 TAXMAN 281 (2) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT(A) VS. HEMANT HASMUKHLAL SHAH 33 TAXMANN 347 (3) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RA NCHHOD JIVABHAI NAKHAVA REPORTED IN 21 TAXMANN 159 (4) DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OFMOONGIPA INVESTMEN T LTD VS. ITO REPORTED IN 30 TAXMANN 113 (5) ITAT AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF UMESH ELECTRICAL S VS ACIT. REPORTED IN 12 TAXMANN 5 (AGRA)(TM) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S. 68 OF RS. 1,34,70,822/-BE DELETED. I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WE LL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR. IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN A BLE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH RECEIVED IN ITS ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,34,70,822/- WHICH ARE SHOWN AS RECEIVED FROM M/S. ACCOST IMPLEX P. LTD. ON BEHALF OF M/S. METAL ENTERPRISES P. LTD. IT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED SO AS TO WHY THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY M/S. ACCOST IMPLEX PVT. LTD TO APPELLANT CO. INSTEAD OF MAKING PAYMENT TO M/S. METAL ENTERPRISES P. LTD DIRECTLY. THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT FOR THE SAME BETWE EN THREE PARTIES. IT IS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED THAT WHAT PREVENTED. M/S. METAL ENTERPRIS ES P. LTD NOT RECEIVING THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM THE PURCHASER DIRECTLY AND WHY THE AP PELLANT CO. WAS USED AS MEDIATOR. THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS? HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS RECEIVED IN CASH WHICH ALSO RAISES DOUBT. NORMALLY THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE TWO CORPORATE ENTITIES TAKES PLACE THROUGH CHEQUES AND CASH PAYMENTS OR CA SH PURCHASES ARE AVOIDED. THE SECTION 40A(3) ALSO RESTRICTS FOR MAKING CASH P AYMENTS IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- EACH. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THE ENTIRE CASH RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT CO. AMOUNTING TO RS.1,34,70,822/- HAS NOT BEEN SATI SFACTORILY EXPLAINED. IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD IN THE JUDGMENT OF T. P. ABDU LLA V/S. ACIT (2012) 20 TAXMAN. COM 402/207 TAXMAN 24 (KERALA) THAT ''IT IS BURDEN OF ASSESSES TO OFFER SATISFACTORY EX PLANATION AND IF MATERIALS AND DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY ASSESSES DO NOT LEAD TO P ROPER, REASONABLE OR ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION AS REGARDS RECEIPTS IN BOOKS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS PERFECTLY ENTITLED TO REPRODUCE HIS NON-SATISFACTIO N, PROVIDED HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND WHICH IS DISCERNIBLE FROM IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE BURDENED WITH ONUS OF PROVIDING NEGATIVE NOR CAN TH ERE BE AN ENDLESS PROCESS OF SUBSTANTIATION OF MATERIALS BY PRODUCTION OF OTHER MATERIALS. WHERE ASSESSEE ONLY PRODUCED CONFIRMATION LETTERS F ROM CREDITORS WITHOUT ANY FURTHER MATERIAL REGARDING IDENTITY, STATUS OR CAPACITY OF CREDITORS OR EVEN ITA NO. 815/AHD/2014 (ASSOCIATED TRADECON (P). LTD. VS. DCIT) A.Y. 2009-10 - 6 - DATES ON WHICH IMPUGNED LOANS WERE GIVEN, ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT BE FAULTED WITH.' THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH RECEIPT OF RS.1,34,70,822/- SHOWN IN THE BANK A/C OF APPELLANT CO. HAS NOT BEEN SATISFAC TORILY EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT CO. AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED T HE PROVISION U/S.68 OF THE ACT. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & LEGAL POSITION AS CITED ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT SINCE THE SOURCE OF CASH RECEIPT OF RS .1,34,70,822/- WAS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED AND HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITI ON OF SAID SUM U/S.68 OF THE I. T. ACT. THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED. THE GROUND OF APPEA L FAILS. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE STRONGLY A RGUES THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN ITS HANDS DESPITE ITS EXPLANATION SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT COG ENT EVIDENCE. HE TAKES US TO ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK COMPRISING OF COPY OF ITS ARTICLES/MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION ALONG WITH THAT OF ITS SISTER CONCERN F OLLOWED BY NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION UNDER COMPANY LAW, MONTHLY VAT RETURN OF THE ALLEGED PAYEE ENTITY M/S. ACCOST IMPEX PVT. LTD. SHOWING PU RCHASES FROM SISTER CONCERN M/S. METAL ENTERPRISES LTD., COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF FORMER PAYEE CONCERN IN SISTER CONCERNS BOOKS, SALE INVOICES, A LLEGED CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. METAL ENTERPRISE, LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN IN ITS BOOKS AND RELEVANT EXTRACT OF BANK STATEMENTS/BANK ACCOUN T TO THIS EFFECT. SHRI TALATI ACCORDINGLY PRAYS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF ASSESSEE S ARGUMENTS BY VEHEMENTLY CONTENDING THAT THE CREDITS IN QUESTION ARE IN FACT IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS NOT COVERED U/S.68 OF THE ACT . SHRI KURIAN STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE CIT(A)S REASONING EXTRACTED IN THE PR ECEDING PARAGRAPHS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILES PERU SED. THERE IS HARDLY ANY DISPUTE THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE RE JECTED ASSESSEES EXPLANATION TO HAVE COLLECTED THE IMPUGNED CREDITS OF RS.1,34,70,822/- ON BEHALF OF ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S. METAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. FROM M/S. ACCOST IMPEX PVT. LTD. IN LIEU OF VARIOUS GOODS SUPPLIED. WE SOUGHT TO KNOW THE ITA NO. 815/AHD/2014 (ASSOCIATED TRADECON (P). LTD. VS. DCIT) A.Y. 2009-10 - 7 - SPECIFIC REASON OF SUCH A CHANNEL OF PAYMENT BEING EXERCISED AT THE ALLEGED PAYEE ENTITYS BEHEST. SHRI TALATI TOOK US TO ASSE SSEES RELEVANT EXPLANATION EXTRACTED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH THAT THERE EXI STED A PAYMENT ISSUE BETWEEN THE OTHER TWO ENTITIES WHEREIN SOME CHEQUES HAD ALSO BOUNCED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE PLAYED A NEGOTIATORS ROLE IN AMICABLY RESOLVING THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THEM. THE CASE FILE HOWEVER NOWHER E INDICATES ANY SUCH DISPUTE BETWEEN ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN AND ALLEG ED PAYEE ENTITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE EVEN DETAILS OF THE CHE QUES BOUNCED IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE ITS PRIMARY ONUS MUCH LESS THAN THE SUBST ANTIVE BURDEN. SHRI TALATI AT THIS STAGE REFERS TO ASSESSEES HUGE LOSSES TO T HE TUNE OF RS.7,81,61,822/- TO PLEAD THAT THERE WAS NO NEED ON ITS PART TO ADOPT S UCH A TAX EVASION METHOD. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS PLEA AS THIS ALONE CANNOT FORM A VALID REASON TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED IN PROVING ITS ABOVE STATED EXPLANATION TO HAVE COLLECTED CONSIDER ATION IN LIEU OF SALE OF GOODS FROM THE PAYEE ENTITY AT ITS SISTER CONCERNS BEHEST. WE ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDE THAT ALL THREE RELEVANT PARAMETERS OF IDEN TITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS HAVE NOT BEEN DISCHARGED AT ASSESS EES BEHEST IN ITS ENDEAVOR TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AS HELD BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT HOLDIN G THAT SUCH AN EXPLANATION MUST SATISFY THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABIL ITIES. WE THUS FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE CIT(A)S ORDER AFFIRMING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION MAKING THE IMPUGNED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS ADDITI ON. THIS FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 6. THE ASSESSEES LATTER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEKS T O DELETE SECTION 68 UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.6LACS MADE IN ITS U CO BANK ACCOUNT. IT STATED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE SAID SUMS AS ADVANCES F ROM CUSTOMERS FOR SUPPLY OF MATERIAL ON 10.02.2009 WHICH WAS THEREAFTER RETU RNED ON 25.02.2009 OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER RE JECTED THE SAID ITA NO. 815/AHD/2014 (ASSOCIATED TRADECON (P). LTD. VS. DCIT) A.Y. 2009-10 - 8 - EXPLANATION QUOTING ITS FAILURE IN PROVIDING NECESS ARY EVIDENCE AND DETAILS OF THE CUSTOMERS CONCERN. THE CIT(A) UPHOLDS THE SAME IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 7. HEARD BOTH SIDES. RELEVANT FINDINGS PERUSED. I T HAS ALREADY COME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE THE LIST OF ITS CUSTOMERS STATED TO HAVE MADE THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT AS ADVANCE MONEY. W E ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDE THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHT LY INVOKED SECTION 68 QUA THE IMPUGNED DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.6LACS SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS LATTER GROUND. WE THUS CONFIRM THE SAME. 8. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017.] SD/- SD/- ( MANISH BORAD ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 25/01/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 45 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0