The ITO, Ward-2, GANDHIDHAM V. M/s Odhavram Construction Suppliers, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 876/RJT/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 87624914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L MEENA IOA
• Assessee Lawyers: D M RINDANI A
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 68; 144

Judgement Text

' R, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU N AL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM AND SHRI D. K. SRIVASTAVA, AM IT A NO . 876 / RJT/20 10 . I I / ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 0 6 - 07 INCOME TAX OFFI CER WARD (2), PLOT NO.32, SECTOR - 3, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH . ( / APPELLANT) VS. M/S ODHAVRAM CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIERS, SRC GODOWN NO.2, KHANNA MARKET, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH. PAN: AAAFO3426A BU / RESPONDENT N A / REVENUE BY SHRI S L MEENA IOA / ASSESSEE BY SHRI D M RINDANI A ' /DATE OF HEARING 16.1 .2013 A ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.4 . 2013 / ORDER .. , / T. K. SHARMA, J. M . THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 27.1.2010 OF CIT(A) - II, RAJKOT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 07 . 2 . BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN TRADING OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL , MAINLY STEEL. FURTHER DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE TRADED NON FERROUS SCRAPE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TURNOVER OF RS.,4,52,63,176/ - GROSS PROFIT OF RS.6,74,656/ - AND NET PROFIT OF RS.34,932. THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO FOR THE YEAR COMES AT 1.49% AND NET PROFIT COMES AT 0.07%. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE GROSS PROFIT WAS ASSESSED @ 2.5% OF THE TURNOVER, IN ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE FOLLOWING DETAILS: A. DETAILS OF INVEN TORIES I) EXACT METHOD OF VALUATION II) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH VALUATION MADE III) ADDRESS OF THE GODOWN/WAREHOUSE/BUILDING IN WHICH STOCK IS NORMALLY KEPT B) NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM GOODS WERE SOLD FOR MORE THAN RS. 1 LAKH ITA NO.876/RJT/2010. 2 C) SHORT EXPLANATORY NOTE ON AL L THE EXPENSES DEBITED IN TRADING AND P&L ACCOUNT D) FURNISH COMPLETE NAMES AND INTEREST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS HAVING BALANCE AS ON 31.3.20 0 6 BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE NEVER PROVIDED DETAILS. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE COMPLETE POSTAL ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM IT HAD SOLD GOODS EXCEEDING RS.1,00,000/ - AND PERSONS HAVING BALANCE AS ON 31. 3 .2006. THE AO ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK OF G OODS AND ITS VALUATION. IN RESPONSE TO THIS THE ASSESSEE ONLY PROVIDED THE COPIES OF ACCOUNT CONTAINING THE NAMES OF THE RELEVANT PARTIES BUT THE POSTAL ADDRESSED WERE NOT GIVEN FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS OF CLOSING STOCK AND ITS VALUATION ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCE WAS ALSO NOT PROVIDED TO THE AO. THE TAX AUDITOR ALSO COULD NOT VERIF Y THE CLOSING STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. IN THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005 - 06, THERE WERE HUGE DISCREPANC IES IN THE MONTH - WISE QUANTITY AND DETAILS AND CLOSING STOCK WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE VALUED AT LOWER RATE. THIS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED MONTHWISE QUANTITY AND DETAILS OR CLOSING STOCK AND ITS VALUATION. THE AO HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE WERE NOT S UPPORTED BY ANY SELF MADE VOUCHERS WHERE THE DETAILS OF TRANSPORTER, QUANTITY OR RATE WAS NOT PROVIDED. ON THE BASIS OF THIS, THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OBSERVE D THAT DIRECT EXP ENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNVERIFIED. 2.1 IN PARAGRAPH 4.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DEDUCE AND CORRECT FROM THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE: A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED THE ADDRESSES OF ITS BU YERS AND SUPPLIERS, THUS THE SALES AND PURCHASES SHOWN BY IT, CANNOT BE VERIFIED FROM THE THIRD PARTIES; B) THE ASSESSEE NOT MAINTAINED THE QUANTITATIVE RECORDS. EVEN THE TAX AUDITOR ALSO COULD NOT VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STOCK AND ITS VALUATION; C) THE DIRECT EXPENDITURE ALSO COULD NOT BE VERIFIED ITA NO.876/RJT/2010. 3 2.2 KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THE ABOVE FACTS, THE AO MADE ASSESSMENT OF PROFIT IN THE MANNER PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) . THE AO APPLIED THE GP RATE AT 2.5% AS AP PLIED BY HIM FOR THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. THE SHORT COMINGS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4,56,923/ - . 2.3 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.4,96,875/ - IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THREE PARTNERS BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER : A) SHRI DAMJI MANGALDAS RS. 1,36,900/ - B) DINESH KARSANDAS RS.1,47,300/ - C) SHANTABEN KARAMSHI RS.2,12,675/ - TOTAL RS.4,96,8875/ - 2.4 FINALLY, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CA SH CREDIT FROM SMT.J.D.BHANUSHALI. THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO FOR MAKING THIS ADDITION IS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE REGARDING CREDITWORTHINESS, IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, THIS DEPOSITS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 2.5 ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, HE DIRECTED THE AO TO WORK OUT THE GP ADDITION BY APPLYING GP AT 1.75%. THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO FOR ALLOWING PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IS CONTAINED IN PARAG RAPHS 2(C) AND 2(CD) : ( C ) I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE A.O. AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. THE A.O. MAINLY EMPHASIZED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT MAINTAINING QUANTITATIVE DETAILS AND CORRECTNESS OF CLOSING STOCK OR ITS VALUA TION WAS NOT VERIFIABLE. IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A SHARP FALL IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER AS COMPARED TO THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS 1.49%, WHEREAS THE SAME WAS DISCLOSED AT 0.84% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THUS, THE GROSS PROFIT WAS SLIGHTLY BETTER. THE APPELLANT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS FOR VERIFICATION, VIDE LETTER DATED 22.11.2008 AND THIS FACT WAS DISCUSSED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 3.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS TRADING IN BULK SALE OF LIMITED ITEMS IN TERMS OF WEIGHT AND MEASUREMENT. IT IS FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT MAINTAIN A STOCK REGISTER AND INVENTORIES WERE UNVERIFIABLE AND THAT LAPSES ALONE WOULD SUGGEST THE FACT THAT CORRECT PROFIT WOULD NOT BE DEDUCED FROM BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THUS, THIS IS A FIT CASE, WHERE THE BOOK RESULTS HAD TO BE REJECTED. ITA NO.876/RJT/2010. 4 (CD) HOWEVER, THERE IS MERIT IN PLEA THAT EVEN IF THE BOOK RESULTS WERE REJECTED, ADOPTION OF GROSS PROFIT RATE SHOULD BE REA SONABLE AND SUCH ESTIMATE SHOULD NOT BE ARBITRARY. THE A.O. TOOK THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AS ADOPTED FOR A.Y.2005 - 06. IF PAST RECORDS NOTED, THE GROSS PROFIT RATIOS WERE 2.01% IN THE A.Y. 2003 - 04, 0.84% IN A.Y. 2005 - 06 AND 1.49% IN A.Y. 2006 - 07. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06, IT WAS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 1.5% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER, VIDE DECISION IN APPEAL NO.CIT (A) - II/0278/07 - 08 DATED 30.09.2009. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTORS, VIZ DECREASE IN TURNOVER A ND PAST RECORDS OF THE APPELLANT, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, IF GROSS PROFIT RATE IS TAKEN AT 1.75% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO WORK OUT THE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY, BY TAKING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 1.75%. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALL OWED. 2.6 IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE THREE PARTNERS AMOUNTING TO RS.4,96,875/ - . ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENT DATED 18. 1 .2004 FOR AGRICULTURAL AND CULTIVATION OF CROP SHARING BA SIS AND EACH PARTNER WAS HAVING SHARES OF 60% OF CROP RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). FINALLY, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN FROM SMT. SMT.J.D.BHANUSHALI ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS PRIMARY ONUS TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RETAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,56,923/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF LAW GP TAKING THE RATE OF GP @ 1.75% INSTEAD OF @2.50% TAKEN BY THE AO; 2 . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,96,875/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN; 04. THAT ON FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDE R OF THE AO TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 0 5 IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IN RESPECT OF FIRST GROUND, SHRI S.L.MEENA, THE LD. DR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND POINTED OUT THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN HAND ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 1142/RJT/2009 (AY - 2005 - 06) . IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ITA NO.876/RJT/2010. 5 MONTH - WISE DETAILS OBVIOUSLY FOR THE REASONS THAT THE AO MAY WORK OUT THE DEFICIT AS WORKED OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 . THE LD. DR TOOK US THROUGH THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND CONTEN DED THAT THE SHORT - COMINGS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF PRECEDING YEAR, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE GP ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY APPLYING GP RATE AT 2.5% AS TAKEN IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005 - 06 . 5. AS AGAINST THIS, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED GP AT THE RATE OF 1.49%. LAST YEAR, GP WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 0.84%. LOOKING INTO THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE GP @1.75% APPLIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS FAIR AND REASONABLE, THEREFORE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 6. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF A UTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES, DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED MONTH - WISE DETAILS OF SALES AND PURCHASES DURING THE TIME PROVIDED BY THE AO. THE NAMES AND ADDRESS OF THE VARIOUS PARTIES TO WHOM THE SALES WERE MADE WERE NOT FURNISHED. THE DETAILS OF CLOSING STOCK WAS ALSO NOT FURNISHE D NEITHER BEFORE THE AO NOR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR THE AO APPLIED THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. IN THAT YEAR , WE HAVE APPLIED THE FIGURE OF RS.17,61,887/ - AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO APPLIED AND GIVEN RELIEF TO THAT EXTENT BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN APPEAL IN ITO V/S M/S ODHAVRAM CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIERS IN ITA NO.1142/RJT/2009 (AY 2005 - 06) . WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITO V/S M/S ODHAVRAM CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIERS (SUPRA) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO ON ASSUMPTION OF GP RATE 2.5% AND BY FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE (SUPRA) FOR AY - 2005 - 06 ACCEPT THE GP RATE ITA NO.876/RJT/2010. 6 1.49% AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORD INGLY, ASSESSEE GET THE RELIEF OF RS. 4,56,923 - 2,72326 = 1,84,597/ - ) . ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7 . WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.4,96,875/ - MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) . THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.DR IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NO T PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT EXCEPT AGREEMENT DATED 18.1.2004 FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR CULTIVATION ON CROP SHARING BASIS AND EACH PARTNER WAS HAVING 60% OF CROP RAISED BEFORE T HE LD. CI T (A) AND NOT BEFO RE THE AO. THE ASSESSE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE PROOF O F HOLDING OF AGRICULTURAL L AND BEFORE THE AO. AS AGAINST THIS, THE LD.COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ALL THE PARTNERS WERE ASSESSED TO TAX AND FURTHER CAPITAL WAS REFLECTED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE A CCOUNTS . THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PANKAJ DYESTUFF INDUSTRIES IN IT NO.241 OF 1993 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NARAYANDAS KEDARNATH V/S CIT REP ORTED IN 22 ITR 18 (BOM). 8 . HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES , WE FIND THAT T HE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED AND HELD THAT ALL THE PARTNERS WERE ASSESSED TO TAX AND FURTHER CAPITAL WAS REFLECTED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE AO HAS NO CAS E TO MAKE ADDITION IN THIS REGARD. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED AGREEMENT DATED 18.1.2004 FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR CULTIVATION ON CROP SHARING BASIS AND EACH PARTNER WAS HAVING 60 % OF CROP . THE ASSESS E E HAS FURNISHED THE PROOF OF HOLDING . HE ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE ADDITION AND WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,96,875/ - . WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION HE LENT THE SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PANKAJ DYESTUFF INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NARAYANDAS KEDARNATH V/S CIT (SUPRA). THEREFORE, WE CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 2 TAKEN BY THE RE VENUE. 9 . WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED LOAN, THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT IN SUPPORT OF LOAN, THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.876/RJT/2010. 7 PROVIDED COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURN AND CONFIRMATION LETTER AND NO OTHER DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCES WERE PRODUCED. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT MERE ESTABLISHING IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONSIDER THE CASH CREDIT AS UNEXPLAINED. THEREFORE, THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE IT ONUS AND THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE SAME IF NOT FOOLPROOF. AS AGAINST THIS THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE LADY SUBMITTED THE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND LETTER OF CONFIRMATION DATED 22.11.2008 AND THE AO DID NOT CALL ANY FURTHER INFORMATION FORM THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOAN TRANSACTION WAS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE CREDITOR WAS ASSESSED TO TAX. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S ROHINI BUILDERS (2002) 256 ITR 360 (GUJ), WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT TRIBUNAL HAVING DELETED THE ADDITION U/S 68 ACCEPTING GENUINENESS OF LOANS WHICH WERE RECEIVED AND REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, THE ASSESSEE HAVING ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR BY GIVING THEIR COMPLETE ADDRESSED. GIT/PAN AS WELL AS CONFIRMATION ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF THEIR ASSESSMENT ORDERS , WHEREVER READILY AVAILABLE NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AROSE. 10 . HAVING HE ARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED LOAN ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURN AND CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE CREDITOR AND THEREBY ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS, AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION THEREBY DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT LOAN TRANSACTION WAS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE CREDITOR WAS ASSESSED TO TAX. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S ROHINI BUILDERS (2002) 256 ITR 360 (GUJ . WE FIND THAT THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - IS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS AND DE CISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIOGH COURT. THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE GROUND NO.3 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. ITA NO.876/RJT/2010. 8 11 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES PARTLY AL LOWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD SD ( D. K. SRIVASTAVA ) (T. K. SHARMA) AT0 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER N / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ORDER DATE 11.4 .2013 . /RAJKOT SRL JO O / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / APPELLANT - , 2. BU / RESPONDENT - 3. R / CONCERNED CIT . 4. - / CIT (A) . 5. BR, ' R, / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. I / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , TRUE COPY SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT. :