The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Surat V. Shri Manojkumar Sriniwas Pacheriwala, Surat

ITA 868/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2010 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2022
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained cash credit; Accommodation entries
• Section: 131; 144; 44AD; 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 868/AHD/2015 (AY 2005-06) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Room No.118, 1 st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Vs Shri Manojkumar Sriniwas Pacheriwala, Prop. Ginni International, 4002, Indradhanush Flats, Nr. Chandan Park, B/h Agrasen Bhavan, City Light, Surat-395007 PAN : ABJPP3803 E Appellant / Revenue Respondent / assessee Assessee by Shri Hiren R Vepari, CA Revenue by Ms.Anupama Singla,Sr-DR Date of hearing 21.03.2022 Date of pronouncement 03.06.2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-II, Surat [for short to as Ld. CIT(A) ”] dated 12.01.2015 for assessment year (AY) 2005-06, which in turn arises out assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide order dated 31.12.2007. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “[1]On the fact and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made of Rs.1,68,15,995/- on account of unverifiable (bogus) purchases even though specific findings were made by the AO viz. export invoices are incomplete and not ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 2 countersigned by the customs authorities, names of the purchases parties not appearing in the documents related to the goods claimed to have been exported. [2]On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that all the purchase parties were not available at the address given by the assessee and no evidence regarding purchase and copy of ledger accounts were furnished by the assessee. [3] On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that in respect of statement of SureshModi, proprietor of Balaji Enterprises who clearly stated that assessee forced to provide accommodationentries of purchase. [4] On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that submission of a certificate by the assessee from Joint Director of General Foreign Trade dated 07.01.2011 where export benefits were reflected, was not produced during the set aside assessment proceedings. [5] On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the cheques issued in favour of purchase parties were credited to the account of third parties and several cheques were discounted by the assessee himself through the shroff. [6] On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of 17,66,000/- on the issue of unexplained cash credits u/s 68, even though the confirmation letters were written by the same person and signature were not found to be genuine. [7] On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the fact that inspite of two creditors viz., Suresh Kumar Modi and Amit Suresh Modi admitting the fact that the unsecured loans received in their name were bogus and mere accommodation entries, the unsecured loans were treated to be genuine to the extent of Rs.17,66,000/-. ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 3 [8] On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and proprietor of Ginni International, engaged in the business of export of Art Silk and garment cloth and trading of Art Silk cloth. The assessee filed his return of income for assessment year 2005-06 declaring income of Rs.1,35,910/-. With the return of income assessee furnished copy of audit report as required under section 44AD of the Act in Form No.3CB & 3CD, with computation of income, profit and loss account and capital account respectively. During the relevant period under consideration, the assessee has shown shales turnover of Rs.6.00 crores (rounded off) against the purchase of Rs.6.72 Crore. The assessee returned loss at Rs. 72,13,747/-, which is 11.1%. The case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under section143(3) on 31.12.2007 made addition on account of bogus purchase of Rs.6.72 crores by taking view that purchase are not genuine and that from the parties from whom the assessee has shown purchase were no found at the addresses furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made independent verification. The Assessing Officer ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 4 issued notices to seller parties under section 133(6), the Postal Authorities reported that either party is ‘not known’ or ‘left’ the address. The Assessing Officer made addition to aggregate of entire purchases. The Assessing Officer also made addition of unexplained cash credit of Rs.20 lakh by taking view that the assessee failed to explain the source of unsecured loan. 3. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was upheld vide order dated 31.122008 in appeal CAS/II/317/07-08. And on further appeal before Tribunal, the matter was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer vide order dated 21.12.2011 in ITA No.945/AHD/2009. The Tribunal recorded that the assessee filed additional evidence, the addition evidence was accepted and the matter was restored to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after considering the evidences and after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. The Assessing Officer passed fresh assessment order in pursuance of direction of Tribunal and restricted the addition of bogus purchases to the extent of 25% by following the order of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vijay Proteins Ltd. (1996) 55 TTJ (Ahd) 76 : 58 ITD 428 (Ahd). The Assessing Officer also held that ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 5 though assessee could not explain the purchase at the same time export of the goods are not possible and that in absence of proper verification of purchases and non-availability of the parties, the disallowance was restricted to 25%. 5. On the addition of unsecured loan, the Assessing Officer recorded that assessee has shown unsecured loan from the following parties:- Name Amount Amit Kumar Modi (minor) 1,34,000/- Basuki Synthetics 10,00,000/- Dulari Devi Saraf 2,85,000/- Jai Prakash Modi 1,40,000/- Kalawati Devi Santoria 3,41,000/- Suresh Kuamr Modi (HUF) 1,00,000/- 6. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) to all the parties for seeking their confirmation of loan. All the notices were returned back un-served. The assessee was asked to produce the parties. The assessee contended that all are staying out of Gujarat and their presence may be excused. The Assessing Officer further recorded that two of the creditors namely, Suresh Kumar Modi (HUF) and Amit Kumar Modi appeared before him in compliance of summons dated 13.12.2007. Their statements ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 6 were recorded. Suresh Kumar Modi (HUF) in his statement denied of given any loan to assessee or his concern. Shri Amit Kumar Modi also denied of having loan transaction to any person. For other creditors, i.e., Basuki Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., the Assessing Officer recorded that neither bank details nor copy of IT return was furnished. For remaining parties, the Assessing Officer concluded that their creditworthiness is also remained unexplained. On the aforesaid observation, the Assessing Officer reinstated the addition of Rs.20 lakhs. Aggrieved by the addition of 25% of the purchase and treatment of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit under section 68, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission. The submission of assessee are recorded in para-5 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). 7. The assessee in his submission, submitted that Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under section 144 on 21.12.2007 besides making addition of unverifiable purchases of Rs. 6.72 Crore and additions of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of Assessing Officer in order dated 31.12.2008. The assessee carried ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 7 the matter before the Tribunal, which restored the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for considering the additional evidence submitted by assessee. The assessee filed such evidences which was obtained from Excise and Custom department and produced before the Assessing Officer. Certificate of custom officer certified that goods in question have been sent through land or sea frontier and exported to different countries but the Assessing Officer has not taken cognizance of such facts. The certificate from the Joint Director of General Foreign Trade was produced against / export benefit including DEPB.Before the Assessing Officer in restoration proceedings, the assessee furnished complete evidence to substantiate the purchases. The assessee on the addition of purchases submitted that a goods purchased by assessee has been accepted by Assessing Officer yet in the course of original assessment, he disallowed the entire purchases. The assessee further furnished the chart of sale and purchase and submitted that total quantity of 9,20,336.45 kg. was sold/ export by the assessee. All purchases have been exported in most of the cases, the purchases & sales are directly linked. Total purchases were of Rs.6.72 crores and sales was of ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 8 Rs.6.00 crores. The assessee incurred loss because of entire calculation was to earn the export benefit and eventuality the assessee earned some amount. However, some of the parties, from whom goods were purchased, had not paid necessary excise duty. Thus, assessee could not earn what he had anticipated and profit was shown at Rs.97,080/-. The assessee earned this profit as assessee received export benefit of Rs.86,34,877/-. Before Assessing Officer, assessee furnished his reply dated 18.03.2013 and sought direction from Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax under section 144A. The Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax issued direction to the Assessing Officer. As per the direction under section 144A, the Assessing Officer accepted the purchases and restricted the disallowance to the extent of 25% on the basis of decision of Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. (58 ITD-428) (supra). 8. The assessee further stated that in absence of purchases sales / export were not possible. The related parties were not available at their respective given address. Payments were made through account payee cheque. The assessee furnished complete details giving names, address, and excise registration number of ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 9 suppliers. The details of bank account, wherein the amount was debited to the account of assessee and credited to the account of sellers. The entire exports were verified by custom authorities. The assessee further stated that Assessing Officer collected copies of the cheques during the original assessment proceedings. The assessee demanded copy of such cheques. There is no endorsement on the cheques. The question of getting back the money is far-fetched and Assessing Officer has not correctly interpreted or appreciated. The allegation that the cheques came back to the assessee and recovered money from Shroffs does not hold good. There is no such evidence and prayed for deleting the entire additions. 9. On the addition of unsecured loan, the assessee submitted that in all the cases confirmation was filed, copies of such confirmation was furnished by giving names, address and PAN along with copy of IT returns and acknowledgement and bank statements. The assessee further explained that in case of Kalavati Devi Santoria, balance-sheet was filed as other documents were squared up which was furnished. The assessee submitted that he has discharged his onus. The remarks made ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 10 by Assessing Officer were totally irrelevant whether the letter was sent by FAX are not relevant. The Assessing Officer referred the statement of Shri Suresh Kumar Modi who has dealt with himself and his son Amit Kumar Modi. The statement recorded by their statement recorded by Assessing Officer were not provided nor allowed their cross-examination. The Assessing Officer mentioned that Shri Suresh Kumar Modi stated about other lender. Such remarks are irrelevant particularly when they have not been summoned nor their replies were obtained. For Basuki Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., the assessee stated that they have made contra account confirmation, which was placed on record, which shows that initially they have paid Rs.10 lakhs to assessee on 11.10.2004. The assessee paid them Rs.10 lakh on 29.10.2004 and 31.10.2004 respectively and they again paid Rs.10 lakh this was squared up on 16.03.2005. Thus, effectively Basuki Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. paid only Rs.5.00 lakh and the addition is made of Rs.10 lakh instead of Rs.5 lakh. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee deleted the entire addition on account of alleged bogus purchases by holding that during assessment, the assessee furnished ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 11 additional evidence which was admitted by Tribunal. The assessee claimed that in all exports, the prescribed form from the custom and Central Excise viz., ARE-1has been filed, which given complete details of goods transferred, their value, names & address detailed of excise registration number. The supplier also signed forms at the back-side of the said form. The certificate of custom officer in shows that goods have been sent either through land or sea frontier and exported to different countries as the case may be. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the Assessing Officer relied on the report of Inspector as recorded by him in para-4.5 without giving copy of such report to the assessee. The Assessing Officer in para-5.2 has wrongly recorded that cheques issued by assessee encased by him. From the copies of cheque, on the basis of which addition was made and again in the second round nothing comes out like that assessee encased the same. The assessee demanded copies of such cheques from the assessing officer which were not provided to him. The copies of such cheques were provided after completion of assessment order. The assessee could not produce the complete details on account of flood destroyed in Surat City in August 2006. The ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 12 assessee obtained completed details from Excise and Custom department and produced before the Assessing Officer. Certificate of custom officer certified that goods in question have been sent through land or sea frontier and exported to different countries but the Assessing Officer has not taken cognizance of such facts. The certificate from the Joint Director of General Foreign Trade was produced against / export benefit including DEPB receipts is also reflected in the bank account of the assessee, which was furnished during assessment as well as appellate proceedings. The Assessing Officer accepted the sales but rejected 25% of purchase. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate to that ARE- 1 certificate has been furnished with providing details of purchase for excise registration number payment made by cheque. The bank account of assessee shows that cheques have been credited in the account of sellers. The Assessing Officer only considered the fact that books of account were not produced and that Inspector reported that parties were not found at the given addresses. On the basis of his observation, he deleted the entire addition / remaining 25% / addition and allowed the corresponding amount. ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 13 11. On the addition under section 68, the Ld. CIT(A) held that Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.20 lakh against unsecured loan. The assessee received unsecured loan of Rs.15 lakh only. During the assessment, statement of Shri Suresh Kumar Modi and Shri Amit Modi were recorded on 14.12.2007, wherein they denied of having taken or given loan to the assessee. In rest creditor / lender i.e., Basuki Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Dulari Devi Saraf, Jai Prakash Modi & Kalawati Santhoria, the assessee provided the copy of statement of account of their name and address PAN, cheque number, copy of IT return. The Assessing Officer has not controverted such evidence filed by assessee. The assessee discharged his onus with regard to four persons. However, with regard to unsecured loan in case of Amit kumar Modi of Rs.1.34 lakhs and Shri Suresh Kumar Modi (HUF) of Rs.1,00,000/-. Both the persons stated that there is no transaction of loan with them. Thus, the addition of transaction with Amit Kumar Modi and Suresh Kumar Modi (HUF) of Rs.2,34,000/- was upheld and remaining addition was deleted. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed present appeal before Tribunal. ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 14 12. We have heard the submissions of Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr-DR) for the Revenue and Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee and perused the materials available on record. Ground No.1 to 5 relates to deleting on account of unverifiable bogus purchases / unverifiable the addition of Rs.1,68,15,995/-. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the order of Assessing Officer. She submits that during the original assessment, assessee failed to substantiate the purchase and to give complete evidence or of such purchase. The assessee merely furnished the names, address of the persons. The Assessing Officer deputed his Ward-Inspector to verify the address of the parties, who reported that none of the parties available on the given address The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to the parties. The notice under section 133(6) was returned unserved with the remarks of the Postal Authorities either of the parties or no such persons available at the aforesaid address. On further appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the addition was upheld, however, on further appeal before Tribunal, assessee filed additional evidence, the application of additional evidence was allowed and the matter ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 15 was remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer during the second round of assessment. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases. The Assessing Officer disallowed the purchase to the extent of 25% on a reasonable basis by taking view that in the original assessment, the sales / export of assessee was not disputed. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire addition that exports / sales of assessee was verified by custom authorities. The observation of Ld. CIT(A) is that export related documents were not considered by the Assessing Officer is factually incorrect as the finding made in the original assessment was incorporated in the assessment order that at no point of time and any document submitted during the course of assessment proceedings about the purchaser parties. The Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that certificate of Joint Director of General Foreign Trade dated 07.01.2011, where export benefit was reflected but no such certificate was produced before Assessing Officer. The Ld. SR-DR for the Revenue submits that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the vital point that all the purchaser parties were not available at the given addresses. ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 16 13. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR for the assessee submits that during the original assessment, records / evidence of purchases could not be produced. This was showed because there was (in Surat city) havoc flood in the month of August, 2006 when 80% of the city were inundated, books of assessee were lost and destroyed. However, books were audited prior to that date that auditor examined them and audit report was furnished and it was brought to the notice of Assessing Officer that assessee has made claim of loss with the parties concerned and he received Rs.15,000/- of loss of computer in which books were maintained the copy of such evidence was filed. The assessee could not bring the confirmation of the purchaser parties due to laps of time. The Assessing Officer relied upon the report of inspector, which was never supplied to the assessee. The assessee obtained the record from the office of custom and excise department and furnished the same before the Tribunal with the prayer to admit additional evidence. The prayer of assessee was accepted and the matter was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to make de novo assessment after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee.The ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 17 Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that Assessing Officer in his original assessment order wrongly stated that cheque issued by assessee were encashed by him but there is no such evidence about such encashment of cheque by assessee. The assessee made prayer for providing copies of such cheque and copies of such cheque were not supplied to assessee that they have completed of same was provided to assessee after completion of assessment proceedings in second round. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee reiterated that when sales / export of assessee is accepted and exactly the sale quantity was exported then disallowance of 25% of such purchases were not justified. Ld. AR for the assessee prayed to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A). 14. We have considered the submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below carefully. We find that the Assessing Officer made the addition of 25% of total purchases by taking view independently examined the fact of the case. We find that there is no dispute that assessee made the sales / export of entire matter / goods. Undisputedly the sale of assessee was not doubted against the export, the assessee ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 18 received DEPB benefit which has been reflected in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee has shown loss. Though the income was shown due to the export benefit of Rs.86,34,887/-. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on appreciation of sufficient evidence available on record which was conveniently ignore by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer based his finding merely on the fact that books were not produced. We find that assessee has explained that the books of account maintained in the system was destroyed due to heavy flood in the month of August, 2006 in city of Surat and against which assessee has received compensation of such loss. Second reason for make disallowance was that Inspector report that parties were not available at the given address. We find that such report was not share with the assessee. It is recognized position under law that evidence which is used against the person must be share to him. The assessee has proved that the entire material purchased by the assessee was exported. The export/ sale is not possible in absence of the purchases. The ratio of case law relied by the assessing officer in Vijay Proteins (supra) is not applicable on the facts of the present case, as the assessee in that case was ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 19 engaged in manufacturing activities, however, the assessee in the case in hand is trader. Moreover, the assessee suffered losses in the trading activities; therefore, even the profit element embedded in such disputed purchases cannot be added because of the pacularity of this case. Thus, with this additional observation of Ld. CIT(A) we affirm the order of Ld. CIT(A). No contrary facts or law is brought to our notice to take other view. Thus, ground No.1 to 5 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 15. Ground No.6 &7 relate to deleting the addition of unsecured loan of Rs.17.66 lakhs. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the order of Assessing Officer and submits that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that all the confirmation letters were written by the same person and the signature was not genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders were not proved on the basis of document provided. The Ld. CIT(A) despite accepting that unsecured loan from Suresh Kumar Modi (HUF) and Amit Kumar Modi was bogus and accepted remaining four creditors simply on the basis of documents furnished by assessee. 16. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 20 furnished name, address, PAN, the amount was received by cheques and repayment by cheque, confirmation and balance- sheet were amounts of outstanding were provided. The assessee discharged his primary onus and Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition with regard to Amit Kumar Modi and Suresh Kumar Modi (HUF) on the basis of statement recorded under section 131 of the Act. The assessee has not challenged the addition of loan received form Amit Kumar and Suresh Kumar (HUF), due to smallness of amount and to avoid litigation. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.10 lakh against the loan of Rs.5 lakh received from Basuki Synthetics Pvt. The ld CIT(A) appreciated the entire evidences and deleted the entire additions. The ld AR for the assessee prayed for dismissing the grounds of appeal. 17. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the order of authorities below. We find that the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.20 lakh by taking view that there was discrepancy in the confirmation by assessee and assessee was asked to produce the parties and that none of the parties were produced by assessee. The Assessing Officer issued ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 21 summons under section 131and recorded statement of parties namely, Suresh Kumar Modi (HUF) and Amit Kumar Modi who had denied of having provided any loan to assessee. The Assessing Officer further noted that in case of Basuki Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. neither bank details nor copy of return of income was furnished. As recorded above that before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission and the evidences to prove the identity, creditworthy of the parties and genuineness of the transaction. We find that the assessee furnished name, address, PAN, the amount was received by cheques and repayment by cheque, confirmation and balance-sheet were amounts of outstanding were provided. The assessing officer has not brought any adverse evidence against the transaction of four parties. We find that Ld. CIT(A) considering the evidence held that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on appreciation of sufficient evidence available on record which was conveniently ignored by Assessing Officer. We find that the Assessing Officer made addition of entire unsecured loan on the basis of statement of Suresh Kumar Modi (HUF) and Shri Amit Kumar Modi. We further find that assessee availed loan of Rs.5.00 lakh from Basuki Synthetics Pvt. Ltd, ITA No.868/AHD/2015 (A.Y.05-06) Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala 22 which is clearly evident from the ledger account filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.10.00 lakh as loan. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on appreciation of evidence available on record. We affirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) and this inter-connected ground No.6 & 7 of Revenue is dismissed. 18. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 03/06/2022 and result was also placed on the notice Board. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 03/06/2022 Dkp. Out Sourcing Senior P.S Copy to: 1. Appellant- 2. Respondent- 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File True copy/ By order // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr.P.S. ITAT, Surat True copy/