The ITO, Ward-4, Navsari V. Shri Thakorbhai Chhotubhai Patel, Navsari

ITA 880/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0805 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R B SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Source of fund
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE ITO, WARD - 4, NAVSARI (APPELLANT) VS THAKORBHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL, AT & PO: DHAMAN, VIA DABHEL, DIST: NAVSARI - 396415 PAN: ANUPP9058N (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI SATISH SOLANKI , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI R.B. SHAH , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 22 - 07 - 2 016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 - 08 - 2 016 / ORDER P ER : S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THIS REVENUE S AP PEAL FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 , AR IS ES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A), VALSAD DATED 31 - 01 - 2012 IN APPEAL NO. I T A NO . 880 / A HD/20 12 A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 I.T.A NO. 880 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. THAKORBHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL 2 CIT(A)/VLS/188/10 - 11 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE REVENUE S FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND ASSAILS CORR ECTNESS OF THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER DELETING SECTION 68 ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER DATED 29 - 12 - 2010. 3. WE COME TO RELEVANT FACTS FIRST. THE ASSESSEE - AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVES INTEREST, COMMISSION AND AGRICULTURAL INCOMES. HE FILED RETURN ON 25 - 03 - 2009 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1,20,900/ - ALONG WITH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,87,500/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK UP SCRUTINY . HE NOTICED CAS H DEPOSITS IN QUESTION TOTALING TO RS. 39 LACS IN ASSESSEE S V ARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO KNOW THE SOURCE THEREOF. THE ASSESSEE S MAIN PLEA WAS THAT HE HAD ADVANCED THESE SUMS TO SIX PERSONS NAMELY; S/SH DULABHAI MAKANBHAI, GEETABEN RAMESHBHAI, CHHOTUBHAI, HASMUKHBHAI, RAMESHBHAI AND HEMAN TBHAI PATELS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING THEIR AGRICULTURAL LANDS DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 BY WAY OF BANKING CHANNEL. ALL THESE PAYMENTS STOOD RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR. THESE SIX PERSONS FILED THEIR CONFIRMATIONS SUPPORTING ASSESSEE S CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME TO BE LACKING GENUINENESS/CREDITWORTHINESS. WE NOTICE THAT THE CIT(A) ELABORATELY DISCUSSES ASSESSING OFFICER S FINDINGS AND ASSESSEE S SUBMISSIONS AS UNDER: - I.T.A NO. 880 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. THAKORBHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL 3 5.6 DECI SION : - I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE SINGLE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF THE ACT OF RS. 39.00 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE BANK A/C. OF THE APPELLANT. THE COMPLETE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAS BEEN NARRATED IN THE FOREGOING PARAS. THE AO AS WELL AS THE ID. AR HAVE NARRATED THE FACTS WHICH IS NOT ON DISPUTE. THE SHORT POINT HERE TO BE CONSIDERED IS THAT WHETHER THE APPELLANT SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROVISIONS U/S.68 OF THE ACT. IN SHORT, ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ID. AR, CAN IT BE HELD THAT THE EXPLANATIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS WHOM THE APPELLANT CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE MONEY WAS ESTABLISHED ? IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ADVANCED AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.39 LACS TO THE ABOVE NAMED SIX FARMERS FROM HIS EXPLAINED SOURCES OF INCOME IN THE F.Y. 2006 - 07 . SECONDLY THE AO DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACT THAT SAID ADVANCES WERE GIVEN BY CHEQUES (BANKING CHANNEL) TO FOUR FARMERS OUT OF SIX AND ADVANCED TO REMAINING TWO FARMERS VIZ. HEMANT I. PATEL AND RAMESH N. - PATEL WAS GIVEN IN CASH BY THE APPELLANT. THIRDLY, IT IS ON RECORDS THAT THE APPELLANT INSISTED CASH REPAYMENT INSTANTLY FROM THE FARMERS TO - WHOM THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN, TO MAKE PAYMENT TO DRT (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) FOR PURCHASE OF A PROPERTY. THE CASH PAYMENT WAS INSISTED BY THE APPELLANT TO AVOID DELAYED PAYMENT TO DRT WHICH COULD RESULT IN CANCELLATION OF THE NEW DEAL WITH DRT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT ITRAVA VILLAGE. THERE IS A PALPABLE REASON FOR THE APPELLANT TO ASK FOR INSTANT PAYMENT. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO FOR MAKING ADDITION OF 39.00 LAKHS U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. IN BRIEF, THE AO JUSTIFIED THE ADDITIONS BECAUSE; I. THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT/SATAKHATA MADE WITH THESES 6 PARTIES FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. II. SOME OF THE PARTIES WHOM THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN, TH EIR NAMES ARE NOT APPEARING IN THE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF 7/12 & 8A. III. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE REPAYING CAPACITY OF THE PERSONS WHO REPAID THE ADVANCE, IV. THUS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINESS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SAID PERSONS. I.T.A NO. 880 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. THAKORBHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL 4 5.7 ON THE OTHER HAND, TO COUNTER THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, THE ID. AR SUBMITTED THAT; I. AFFIDAVITS SWORN BY THOSE SIX FARMERS AFFIRMING THE FACT THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 ADVANCE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL FROM THE APPELLANT AGAINST THEIR AGRICULTURAL LAND BY CHEQUES/ CASH TOWARDS THE DEAL AND UP ON CANCELLATION OF THE DEAL THEY HAVE REPAID THE SAID ADVANCE TO THE APPELLANT IN CASH DURING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. II. COPIES OF THE BANK PASS BOOKS O F THOSE SIX FARMERS IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE FACTS SHOWING ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THEM DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 BY CHEQUE AND CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE BY THEM FOR REPAYMENT MADE TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. III. CERTIFICATE ISSUED B Y VILLAGE TALATI - CUM - MANTRI TOWARDS THE IDENTITY OF THE FARMERS CONFIRMING THE FACT THAT THOSE SIX FARMERS HAVE SIZABLE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS WELL AS AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING. IV. COPIES OF THE FORM NO.7/12 ANF 8/A ABSTRACTS SHOWING THE AGRICULTUR AL LAND HOLDING OF THE SIX FARMERS WHICH THEY INTENDED TO SALE TO THE APPELLANT AND WHICH DEAL SUBSEQUENTLY WAS CANCELLED DURING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. V. PROOFS WITH REASONS WHY THE APPELLANT INSISTED CASH REPAYMENT INSTANTLY FROM THE FARMERS A S THE APPELLANT WANTED TO MAKE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF ANOTHER PROPERTY TO DRT (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) AND HAD THE FARMERS MADE REPAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE THEN THE DELAY IN THE PROCESS OF CLEARANCE OF CHEQUE WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN CANCELLATION OF THE NEW DE AL OF THE APPELLANT WITH DRT FOR PURCHASE OF ANOTHER PROPERTY AT ITRAVA VILLAGE. VI. THE RELEVANT ABSTRACT OF THE APPELLANT'S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 29 - 12 - 2010, FILED BEFORE THE AO JUSTIFYING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT IN BANK ACCOU NT I.E. OUT OF THE REPAYMENT RECEIVED FROM SIX FARMERS ALSO EXPLAINED PARTIWISE. I.T.A NO. 880 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. THAKORBHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL 5 VII. THE ID. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THE REASONS WHY THE APPELLANT INSISTED ON CASH PAYMENTS FROM THOSE PARTIES. 5.8 I HAVE GIVEN DUE WEIGHTAGE TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF TH E AO AND THE COUNTER SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, WHAT IS TO BE DECIDED HERE WAS WHETHER THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROVISIONS U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. THAT IS TWO MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS ENVISAGED IN THE SAI D PROVISIONS ARE - I) THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH SUM, OR II) THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, NOT SATISFACTORY. IN THIS CASE THE AO HELD, AFTER GIVING DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE SUBMISSION, THAT THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT SATISFACTORY DUE TO - THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THOSE PARTIES WHOM THE APPELLANT RECEIVED THE MONEY. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN ALL RELEVANT COGENT EVIDENCES ABOUT THOSE 6 PARTIES AND THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THEM TO THE APPELLANT. THAT IS, THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS AND BANK DETAILS, TALATI CERTIFICATES, RECORDS OF 7/12 & 8A. FROM THE BANK STATEMENT THE AR LINKED THE PAYMENTS BY EACH OF THE PARTIES. THUS IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PARTIES ARE NOT GENUINE. IN IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ASKED TO PROVE SOURCE OF SOURCE OF INCOME TO QUALIFY THE REASONABLENESS AS REQUIRED BY SEC.68 OF THE ACT. IN T HIS CASE, THE FACTS REMAIN UNDISPUTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ADVANCED THOSE 6 PARTIES FOR PURCHASE OF LAND FROM IT'S KNOWN SOURCE OF INCOME. WHEN THE ADVANCES WERE RETURNED BY THEM, WHY SHOULD THE APPELLANT PUMP HIS MONEY FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. IT IS ON RE CORD THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT BUY THE LAND FROM THEM EVEN AFTER L APSE OF 4 YEARS INDICATES THAT THE REFUND OF MONEY TAKES THE COLOUR OF GENUINENESS. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT WHEN PROPERTIES ARE PURCHASED THROUGH DRT AUCTION ONE HAS TO MA KE PROMPT PAYMENTS AS DIRECTED BY THE HON'BLE DRT, OTHERWISE THE DEAL IS OFF. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE APPELLANT TO ASK FOR CASH PAYMENT FROM THOSE PARTIES TO ENSURE THAT HE DOES NOT COMMIT DEFAULT IN PAYMENT TO DRT. IN VIEW OF THE FORGOING, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS AS ENVISAGED IN THE SEC.68 OF THE ACT AND BACKED BY COGENT EVIDENCES. THUS, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS GROUND. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. I.T.A NO. 880 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. THAKORBHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL 6 4. BOTH PARTIES STRONGLY ARGUE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS. RELEVANT FACTS NARRATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS ARE NOT REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. THIS IS ADMITTEDLY NOT A CASE WHERE IDENTITY OF THE SIX PAYERS HEREINABOVE IS IN DISPUTE. THE REVENUE S SOLE ARGUMENT QUOTES ASSESSING OFFICER S FINDINGS HEREINABOVE IN SEEKING TO REVIVE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT FOUR OUT OF THESE SIX PERSONS HAD AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNERSHIP IN THEIR NAMES SINCE THEY PLAC ED ON RECORD THEIR 7/12 AND 8A CERTIFICATES TO NAME A FEW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT TWO PERSONS COULD NOT PROVE THEIR LAND TITLE. THE ASSESSEE PROVED IN THE COURSE OF LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDING S THAT THESE TWO FARMERS WERE JOINT OWNERS OF THE LAND. THERE IS FURTHER NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR LAND PURCHASES IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 AND THERE IS NEITHER ANY PURCHASE AGREEMENT NOR CANC ELL ATION THEREOF IN WRITING. IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THESE SIX VENDORS HA VE RETU RNED THEIR ADVANCES TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR . LD. CIT(A) FURTHER RECORDS A FINDING A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE SUCCESSFULLY LINKED THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION IN CASE OF EACH PARTY. THE EXTRA - ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE FORMING PRIMARY R EASON OF CASH PAYMENT IS THAT THERE WERE SOME DRT PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS IN URGENT NEED OF MONEY. WE NOTICE THAT ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE FORMS PART OF THE CASE FILE. REVENUE FAILS TO REBUT ANY OF THE CIT(A) S FINDINGS WITH THE HELP THEREO F. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN WELL REASO NED LOWER APPE LLATE FINDINGS. THIS FIRST SUBST A NTI VE GROUND FAILS ACCORDINGLY. I.T.A NO. 880 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. THAKORBHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL 7 5. WE COME TO REVENUE S LATTER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEKING TO REVIVE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS ADDITION OF RS. 13 LACS I.E. RS . 7 LACS IN CASE OF SHRI BACHUBHAI CHOTTABHAI PATEL AND RS. 6 LACS FROM SHRI AMIT THAKOREBHAI PATEL. THE CIT(A) DELETES THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AS UNDER: - 7.2 DECISION : - 1 HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS OBSERVATION OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE FACT REMAINS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE DEPOSITORS ALONG WITH THEIR ADDRESSES, COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS, ROI, ETC. IT IS ALSO FACT THAT AMIT PATEL IS THE SON AND BACHHUBHAI C PATEL IS THE BROTHER OF THE APPELLANT. BOTH OF THEM WERE GAINED FROM SHARE DISINVESTMENT WITH M/S. DESAI COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THESE PARTIES IT IS CLEARLY NOTICED THAT THE TRANSACTION HAS TAKEN PLAC E THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE AT THAT POINT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, SEC. 68 EMPOWERS THE AO MAKE ENQUIRY SPECIFICALLY TO BE SATISFIED REGARDING THE CASH CREDIT. IF HE IS SATISFIED THAT THESE ENTRIES ARE NOT GENUINE HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO ADD THESE AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO IS THE BASIS OF INVOCATION OF THE POWER U/S.68 AND THE SATISFACTION MUST BE DERIVED FROM RELEVANT FACTORS ON THE BASIS OF PROPER ENQUIRY. THE ENQUIRY ENVISAGED IN THE SEC. 68 IS AN ENQUIRY WHICH IS REASONABLE AND JUST. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE IDENTITY OF THE LOANER IS NOT DOUBTED. THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ROUTED THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNEL AND AT THE SOURCE OF THE FUND HAS BEEN EXPLAINED. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF TH E SAID TRANSACTION. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, SATISFACTION MUST BE DERIVED FROM RELEVANT FACTORS ON THE BASIS OF PROPER ENQUIRY. THERE ARE PLETHORA OF JUDGEMENTS WHICH HAVE LAID DOWN THAT MERELY REJECTION OF EXPLANATION WITHOUT PROPER ENQUIRY IS INVALID, TWO CAS ES DEVAMANI ATHA VS. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 837 (ORI), SETH TEXTILE VS. ITO 126 TAXMAN 34 (MUMBAI) ARE CITED HERE. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT AN ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH SOURCE OF THE SOURCE AND WILL BE DISCHARGED OF HIS BURDEN IF HE PROVES THE SOUR CE OF THE CREDIT APPEARING IN HIS BOOK WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS THAT AN ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE - CIT VS. DAULAT RAM I.T.A NO. 880 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. THAKORBHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL 8 RAWARMULL (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AND LEGAL POSITIONS CITED ABOVE, I AM INCLINED HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED IT'S ONUS IN SUPPORT OF THE UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN FROM THESE TWO PARTIES WITH RELEVANT EVID ENCES. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,00,000/ - . THE APPELLANT'S GROUND IS ALLOWED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TAKES US TO ASSESSING OFFICER S FINDINGS WHEREIN SHRI AMIT PATEL W AS FOUND TO HAVE DEPOSITED THE SAME AMOUNT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON THE VERY DAY OF ISSUING RELEVANT CHEQUE TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER HAVING RECEIVED THE SAME FROM TWO PERSONS SHRI SANDEEP AND CHHOTUBHAI PATEL TO THE TUN E OF RS. 5 LACS AND RS. 1 LACS ; RESPECTIV ELY . THIS ARGUMENT FAILS TO IMPRESS UPON US AS THE SAME R ATHER PROVES SOURCE OF THE ASSE SSEE S SOURCE WHEREIN ALL OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS HIS CASE. WE COME TO LATTER SUM OF RS. 7 LACS. THIS CASE FILE REVEALS THAT THE SAME AMOUNT CAME FROM ONE SHRI RAMES H NAROTTAM PATEL AS LAND ADVANCES RECEIVED BACK. THIS ALSO EXPLAINS SOURCE OF SOURCE IN ASSESSEE S CASE. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS ALREADY FILED ALL INCOME TAX STATEMENTS/RETURNS ALONG WITH THEIR BANK ACCOUNT. BOTH THES E PERSONS ARE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE (SUPRA). THE REVENUE DOES NOT CONTROVERT ALL THESE FINDINGS IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US. WE CONCLUDE IN THESE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE IDENTITY, GENUIN EN ESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF ITS EI GHT PAYERS IN QUESTION. WE FIND NO REASON TO REVERSE CIT(A) S ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE. THIS LATTER GROUND ALSO MEETS THE SAME FATE. I.T.A NO. 880 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ITO VS. THAKORBHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL 9 7. THIS REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 11 - 08 - 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( MANISH BORAD ) ( S. S. GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 11 /08 /2016 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, IT AT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,