BIMAL HANSARIA, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 850/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1920 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM ROY DCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR; ISHA KANONGOADV
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 69C; 68; 148; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 850/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 BIMAL HANSARIA, PLOT NO. 103, MARTIN AMBIENCE, COROL APARTMENT, D-57, AMBA BARI, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAJPH 2108 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR & MS. ISHA KANONGO(ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM ROY (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 25/10/2017 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/11/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES F ROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-2, JAIPUR DATED 23/08/2016 FOR THE A. Y. 2003-04. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFA CTURING AND TRADING OF HANDICRAFTS ITEMS. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 27/09/2003 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,65,119/-. NOTICE U/ S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS ISSUED ON 30/03/201 0. THE ASSESSMENT U/S ITA 850/JP/2016_ BIMAL HANSARIA VS. ITO 2 147/144 OF THE ACT WAS MADE AT AN INCOME OF RS. 23,2 1,850/- ON 28/12/2010 AND ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT WAS MADE A T RS. 19,15,740/-, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST DISALLOWED OF RS. 2, 02,673/- AND ADDITION U/S 69C OF RS. 38,315/-. 3. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DIS MISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 1 1/3/2014 WHILE DECIDING THE ITA NO. 84/JP/2012, SET ASIDE THE ISSU E TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: 'WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PR ESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE UN DER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT AND THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT THERE WERE MISTAKES IN THE PANS OF THE DEPOSITORS G IVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT INFORMED THAT THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO CERTAIN DEPOSITORS WERE RETURNED ON ACCOUNT OF WRONG ADDRESS OR INCOMPLETE ADDRESS, HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT COMMENT ON THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 1 TO 67 OF THE ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE CONFIRMATION, ACKNOWLEDGEMEN T OF RETURN OF INCOME, COPY OF PAN CARD AND BANK STATEMENTS ETC. OF THE DE POSITORS WERE GIVEN. IT THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONFIR MING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERS PECTIVE AND ALSO DID NOT PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CORRECTING THE CLE RICAL MISTAKES, IF ANY, IN PANS. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACT S, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE.' ITA 850/JP/2016_ BIMAL HANSARIA VS. ITO 3 THUS, ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT, TH E HONBLE ITAT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS IN RIGHT PER SPECTIVE AND ALSO DID NOT PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CORRECTING THE CLERICAL MISTAKES, IF ANY, IN PANS. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE IT AT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT COMMENTED ON THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE, WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE 1 TO 67 OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE DOCUMENTS INCLUDES THE CONFIRMATION, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME, COPY OF PAN CARD AND BANK STATEMENTS ETC. O F THE DEPOSITORS. 4. IN THE SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE I TAT BY TAKING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,07,2 40/- U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AFTER SUBMITTING THE CONFIRMATIONS AND OTHER EVIDENCES OF ALL THE CREDIT ORS IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE GROUND RELATION ADDIT ION OF RS. 2,02,673/- BY DISALLOWING OF INTEREST PAID BY THE A SSESSEE. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 38,315/ - U/S 69C ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES ON PRESUMPTION BASI S. ITA 850/JP/2016_ BIMAL HANSARIA VS. ITO 4 5. IN THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL, THE ISSUE IS SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,07,240/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ON THIS ISSUE, WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION FROM ALL THESE DEPOSITORS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETUR NS, COPY OF PAN AND IN CERTAIN CASES, COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ALL THESE PERSONS WERE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX. THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED B Y CHEQUES. HE SUBMITTED A CHART WHEREBY DETAILS REGARDING EACH AN D EVERY DEPOSITOR HAS BEEN PROVIDED. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: (I) ARAVALI TRADING CO. VS. ITO (2008) 8 DTR (RAJ) 1 99 (II) KANHAIYA LAL JANGID VS CIT (2008) 217 CTR 354 ( RAJ). (III) ASSTT.CIT VS. SWAMI COMPLEX (P) LTD. (2007) 11 1 TTJ (JP) 531. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS RELIED ON THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. THE A SSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED CORRECT PAN OF ALL THE DEPOSITORS. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION FROM ALL THESE DEPOSITORS. IN THE CASE OF M.S. JEWELLERS, WHICH IS A PROPRIETORY CONCERN OF SATYA PRAKASH KHANDELWA L, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ITA 850/JP/2016_ BIMAL HANSARIA VS. ITO 5 AMOUNT OF RS. 50000/- WERE RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED PAN AND CONFIRMATION OF THE DEPOSITOR ALONGWITH FULL ADDRESS. IT IS ALSO NOTICED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITOR THAT THER E WAS A OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 3,54,000/-. THUS, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 50,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE WAS ACTUALLY RETURN OF BALANCE OU TSTANDING WITH M.S. JEWELLERS, PROPRIETORY CONCERN OF SATYA PRAKASH KHA NDELWAL, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITI ON. IN THE CASE OF RISHAB MARBLE, PROPRIETORY CONCERN OF RAJEEV JAIN, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED FULL ADDRESS, ALONGWITH PAN. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED INCOME TAX RETU RN OF RISHAB MARBLE AND ALSO COPY OF RELEVANT ACCOUNT. FROM PERUSAL OF THIS, IT IS FOUND THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE DEP OSITOR HAS CONFIRMED THE DEPOSIT. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED IT RET URN OF THE DEPOSITOR WITH FULL ADDRESS AND PAN, THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDER ED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THIS DEPOSITOR WHILE ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF THE PER SON, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR. IN THE CASE OF PUSHPA JALAN, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVE N FULL ADDRESS, PAN, COPY OF IT RETURN U/S 143(1) WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. COPY OF RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CHEQUE IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUN T OF PUSHPA JALA HELD ITA 850/JP/2016_ BIMAL HANSARIA VS. ITO 6 WITH CANARA BANK SPECIAL BENCH ACCOUNT NO. 7004. SHE HAS CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION. THUS, IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS U/S 68 BY ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY, GENUINENE SS OF TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR. IN THE CASE OF SALONI HANSARIA, THE ASSESSEE PROVI DED CORRECT ADDRESS, PAN, CONFIRMATION AND INCOME TAX ASSESSMEN T RECORDS. FROM PERUSAL OF THE CONFIRMATION, IT IS NOTICED THAT THI S AMOUNT WAS OLD OUTSTANDING AND BROUGHT FORWARD BALANCE WAS REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNT. THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. CONFIRMATION WAS SUBMI TTED, THEREFORE, IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH T HE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR . HENCE, THIS ADDITION IS DELETED. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF ASHOK HANSARIA, THE ASSES SEE HAS FURNISHED FULL ADDRESS, CONFIRMATION, COPY OF IT RETURNS, PAN. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH CHEQUES. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSE E WAS ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE AD DITION IS DELETED. IN THE CASE OF SITA RAM GUPTA, THE ASSESSEE PROVID ED FULL ADDRESS, HIS PAN. IN THE EARLIER OCCASION, THERE WAS A CLERI CAL MISTAKE IN PROVIDING PAN BUT SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED CO RRECT PAN OF THIS DEPOSITOR. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH CHEUQES . THEREFORE, I FIND NO MERIT IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION. ITA 850/JP/2016_ BIMAL HANSARIA VS. ITO 7 IN THE CASE OF RAJAT MEDICAL AND PROVISION, A PROP RIETORY CONCERN OF RADHA GOPAL GUPTA. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FULL A DDRESS ALONGWITH PAN AND CONFIRMATION. THE LD. CIT(A) SIMPLY CONFIRMED T HE ADDITION BY STATING THAT THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITOR WAS N OT FURNISHED. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE WAS A BLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY ESTABLISHING THE IDEN TITY, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR. H ENCE, THE ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. IN THE CASE OF RADHA MOHAN GUPTA, THE ASSESSEE PRO VIDED FULL ADDRESS, HIS PAN. IN THE EARLIER OCCASION, THERE WAS A CLERICAL MISTAKE IN PROVIDING PAN BUT SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SU BMITTED CORRECT PAN OF THIS DEPOSITOR. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH CH EUQES. THEREFORE, I FIND NO MERIT IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION. IN THE CASE OF GOVIND RAM, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNIS HED FULL ADDRESS ALONGWITH PAN AND CONFIRMATION. THE LD. CIT(A) SIMPLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY STATING THAT THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT O F THE DEPOSITOR WAS NOT FURNISHED. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH CHEQUE S. THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY EST ABLISHING THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF T HE DEPOSITOR. HENCE, THE ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ITA 850/JP/2016_ BIMAL HANSARIA VS. ITO 8 IN THE CASE OF GIRIRAJ AGARWAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS FU RNISHED FULL ADDRESS ALONGWITH PAN AND CONFIRMATION. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTI ON AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR. HENCE, THE ADDITION IS DIRECTED T O BE DELETED. IN THE CASE OF AMIT KUMAR SANAN, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FULL ADDRESS ALONGWITH PAN AND CONFIRMATION. ALL THE TRAN SACTIONS WERE THROUGH CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTI ON AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR. HENCE, THE ADDITION IS DIRECTED T O BE DELETED. IN THE CASE OF NEELAM KASAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBM ITTED FULL ADDRESS, ALONGWITH PAN. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED CONFIR MATION. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED INCOME TAX RETURN AND ALSO COPY OF RELEVA NT ACCOUNT. FROM PERUSAL OF THIS, IT IS FOUND THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS RE CEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE DEPOSITOR HAS CONFIRMED THE DEPOSIT. H E HAS ALSO SUBMITTED IT RETURN OF THE DEPOSITS WITH FULL ADDRESS AND PAN, THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO DISCHARGE T HE ONUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THIS DEPOSITOR WHILE ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR. IN THE CASE OF PUSHPA HOLANI, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUB MITTED FULL ADDRESS, ALONGWITH PAN. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED CONFIR MATION. HE HAS ALSO ITA 850/JP/2016_ BIMAL HANSARIA VS. ITO 9 SUBMITTED INCOME TAX RETURN AND ALSO COPY OF RELEVA NT ACCOUNT. FROM PERUSAL OF THIS, IT IS FOUND THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS RE CEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE DEPOSITOR HAS CONFIRMED THE DEPOSIT. H E HAS ALSO SUBMITTED IT RETURN OF THE DEPOSITS WITH FULL ADDRESS AND PAN, THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO DISCHARGE T HE ONUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THIS DEPOSITOR WHILE ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR. IN THE CASE OF RAM BABU GUPTA, THE ASSESSEE HAS FU RNISHED FULL ADDRESS ALONGWITH PAN AND CONFIRMATION. ALL THE TRAN SACTIONS WERE THROUGH CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTI ON AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR. HENCE, THE ADDITION IS DIRECTED T O BE DELETED. IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA BRIGHT METAL IND., A PROPRI EOTRY CONCERN OF KRISHAN KUMAR KHATUWALA, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FULL ADDRESS ALONGWITH PAN AND CONFIRMATION. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTI ON AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR. HENCE, THE ADDITION IS DIRECTED T O BE DELETED. THE DIFFERENT HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND THE COORDINATE BENCH OF JAIPUR ITAT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES HAVE DECIDED SUCH TYPE OF ISS UE, WHICH IS AS UNDER: (I) ARAVALI TRADING CO. VS. ITO (2008 8 DTR (RAJ) 199 ITA 850/JP/2016_ BIMAL HANSARIA VS. ITO 10 ONCE THE EXISTENCE OF THE CREDITORS IS PROVED AND SUCH PERSON OWN THE CREDITS WHICH ARE FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF THE A SSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE'S ONUS STANDS DISCHARGED AND THE LATER IS NOT FURTHER REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THE CREDITORS COULD HAVE ACQUIRED THE MONEY DEPOSITED WITH HIM EIT HER IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 OR ON GENERAL PRINCIPLE. (II) KANHIVA LAI JANGID VS. CIT (2008) 217 CTR 354 ( RAI.) INCOME-CASH CREDIT-BURDEN OF PROOF-ASSESSEE HAVING FILED CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITOR WHERE THE CREDITOR AF FIRMED ADVANCEMENT OF LOAN TO ASSESSEE, NO ADDITION UNDER S. 68 COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON THE GROUN D THAT THE CREDITOR COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE SOURC E OF LOAN- BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH CASES DOES NOT EXTEN D TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE CREDITOR FROM WHERE HE MADE THE ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. (III) ASSTT. CIT VS. SWAMI COMPLEX (P) LTD. (2007) 11 1 TTJ (JP) 531 WHERE COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE CREDITORS WERE FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SOME OF THE CREDITORS WERE BEING AS SESSED AND WERE HAVING PAN'S THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT J USTIFIED IN ADDING THE CASH CREDITS IN QUESTION WITHOUT VERIF YING THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THEM BY SUMMONING THE CREDIT OR AND AS SUCH THE ADDITION OF CASH CREDITS STANDING IN THEIR NAMES WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. (IV) ASA RAM MUKAND LAL VS. ASSTT. CIT (1999) 64 TTJ (DEL) 466 CASH CREDIT - GENUINENESS - ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD AS AN ALLEGED TO SHOW THAT THE LO AN IS NOT GENUINE AND THAT IT WAS ASSESSEE'S OWN MONEY AS ALLEG ED BY HIM. HE HAS NOT EXAMINED THE PARTIES WHO ARE SAID TO HAVE ADVANCED MONEY TO CREDITOR M BY MEANS OF CHEQUES. A DDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ITA 850/JP/2016_ BIMAL HANSARIA VS. ITO 11 (V) PREM LATA SHARMA VS. ITO (ITAT JAIPUR BENCH) IT A NO. 8/JP/2009 DATED 24.07.2009 SECTION 68 - ASSESSEE OBTAINED LOAN OF RS. 25 LAC FROM 18 DIFFERENT PERSONS. ASSESSEE FURNISHED CONFIRMATION AND COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF 5 PERSONS ONLY. ASSESSIN G OFFICER REQUIRED TO PRODUCE ALL THE CREDITORS. ASSESSEE FAI LS TO PRODUCE THEM. ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE CREDI TORS BUT NONE APPEARED, ULTIMATELY ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE LOAN AMOUNT. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. BEFORE THE IT AT IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE CREDITORS ARE INCOME TAX ASS ESSEE AND CONFIRMATIONS AND PAN WERE FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. SURRENDER WAS MADE TO PURCHASE PEACE OF MI ND AND TO AVOID LITIGATION. TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I DELE TE THE ADDITION AND THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE GROUND NO. 2, THE ISSUE RAISED IS SUSTAIN ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEPOSITS OF RS . 2,02,673/-. 9. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. SINCE I HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON WHICH , INTEREST WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE DEPOSITORS HAD BEEN FOUND GENUINE, THEREFORE, IN CONSEQUENCE OF THAT THE PAYMENTS OF I NTEREST ON THIS DEPOSIT IS ALSO HELD TO BE GENUINE. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF A SSESSEES APPEAL IS ALSO ALLOWED. 10. IN THE GROUND NO. 3, THE ISSUED RAISED IS CONFI RMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 38,315/- MADE U/S 69C OF THE ACT. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. ITA 850/JP/2016_ BIMAL HANSARIA VS. ITO 12 CIT(A), IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJ UDICATED UPON THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL BEFORE HIM. SINCE THIS GROUND IS NOT DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE THE SAME IS DIS MISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/11/2017. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 13 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI BIMAL HANSARIA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 850/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR