Shri Prakash Laxman Suryanwanshi, Nashik V. Asstt.CIT,Cir.2, Nashik

ITA 887/PUN/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 88724514 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K OJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: NILESH KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.824/PN/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, NASHIK . APPELLANT VS. SHRI PRAKASH LAXAMAN SURYAWANSHI, SHALIN, SHRIRAMNAGAR, DINDORI ROAD, NASHIK PAN : APEPS9108E . RESPONDENT ITA NO.887/PN/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000) SHRI PRAKASH LAXAMAN SURYAWANSHI, FLAT NO. 15, PENTAGAON, HSG. SOCIETY, SAVARKAR NAGAR, GANGAPURROAD, NASHIK 422 013 PAN : APEPS9108E . APPELLANT VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, NASHIK . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. NILESH KHANDELWAL DEPARTMENT BY : MR. K. K. OJHA DATE OF HEARING : 06-08-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-08-2013 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE CAPTIONED CROSS-APPEALS, EACH BY THE ASSESSEE A ND THE REVENUE, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, WERE H EARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED-OFF BY WAY OF A CONSOLIDATED ORDER F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I, NASHIK DA TED 28.03.2007 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31. 03.2004 PASSED BY THE ITA NO.824/PN/2007 ITA NO.887/PN/2007 A.Y. 1999-2000 ASSESSING OFFICER, UNDER SECTION 143(3)/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999- 2000. 2. IN THE CAPTIONED CROSS-APPEALS, THE ISSUE RAISED IS SIMILAR, NAMELY, ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING CE RTAIN CREDITS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INVOKING SECTIO N 68 OF THE ACT. THE RIVAL GRIEVANCES CAN BE UNDERSTOOD AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LAND DEVELOPERS AND BUIL DERS. IN THE COURSE OF IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3 )/148 OF THE ACT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD RAISED CERTAIN UNSECU RED LOANS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES TOTALING TO RS.38,83,208/-. THE ASSESSEE WA S REQUIRED TO FURNISH RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE UNSECURED LOANS . SIMILARLY, ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ADVANCES AGAINST BOOKING OF PLOTS OF RS.24,12 ,734/- IN THE BALANCE- SHEET AS ON 31.03.1999. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUI RED TO FURNISH PARTY-WISE DETAIL OF THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED AGAINST EACH PLOT. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN R ESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS OR BOOKING ADVANCES AND THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.38,83,208/- AND ADVANCES OF RS.24,12,73 4/- AS UNEXPLAINED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY T HE ADDITION OF RS.62,95,942/- WAS MADE. 3. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE FILED DETA ILED SUBMISSIONS GIVING INFORMATION ABOUT VARIOUS CREDITORS TOWARDS LOANS A ND ADVANCES AND ALSO WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN PERSONS FROM WHOM BOOKING ADVANC ES AGAINST SALE OF PLOTS WAS RECEIVED. THE CIT(A) FORWARDED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT. I N PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT(A) HAS NARRATED THE VARIOUS REMAND R EPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASSESSEES COMMENTS THEREOF W HICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY HIM. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO THE REMAND REPORTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CI T(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF ITA NO.824/PN/2007 ITA NO.887/PN/2007 A.Y. 1999-2000 RS. 25,25,000/- OUT OF UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.38,83, 208/- AND RETAINED THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.13,58,208/-. PRESENTLY, ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL CHALLENGING THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS.13,58, 208/- OUT OF UNEXPLAINED LOANS WHEREAS THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETI ON OF RS.18,60,000/- OUT OF THE UNSECURED LOANS MADE BY THE CIT(A). 4. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO THE ADVANCES AGAINST S ALE OF PLOTS OF RS.24,12,734/- TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,07,582/- AND RETAINE D THE ADDITION OF RS.9,05,152/-. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL HAS CHALL ENGED THE SUSTENANCE OF THE ADDITION OF RS.9,05,152/- WHEREAS THE REVENUE H AS ONLY CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF RS.12,48,582/- MADE BY THE CIT(A). 5. IN THE ABOVE MANNER, IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT ISSUE RAISED IN THE CROSS- APPEALS IS SIMILAR AND THEREFORE THEY ARE BEING CON SIDERED TOGETHER HEREINAFTER. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS OF LAND DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS. ON A PERUSAL OF ITS BALANC E-SHEET AS ON 31.03.1999, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SH OWN LIABILITIES TOWARDS UNSECURED LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS.38,83,208/- AND ALS O BOOKING ADVANCES AGAINST SALE OF PLOTS OF RS.24,12,734/-. THE ASSESS EE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN SUCH CREDITS APPEARING IN HIS ACCOUNTS. SECTION 68 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN BOOKS OF AN ASSE SSEE AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE T HEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, SATISFACTORY THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. QUITE CLEARLY, IN SO FAR AS THE IMPUGNED CREDITS ARE CONCERNED, THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF. IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT IN ORDER TO DISCHAR GE THE ONUS CAST ON THE ITA NO.824/PN/2007 ITA NO.887/PN/2007 A.Y. 1999-2000 ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, IT IS I MPERATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDI TOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IT IS, IN THIS BACKGROUND, THAT WE MAY NOW PROCEED TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED SUCH ONUS OR NO T. 7. FIRSTLY, WE MAY TAKE-UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENU E WHEREIN THE FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO AN ADDITION OF RS.18,60,000 /- REPRESENTING UNSECURED LOANS RAISED FROM ONE SHRI B.T. GAIKWAD, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A). IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE SAID LOAN WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNE LS. IN PARA 6.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT(A) OBSERVES THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE POSITION THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUES FO UND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS PER INFORMATION OBTAINED DIRECTLY FROM T HE BANK. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO RECORDED A FINDING THAT BY WAY OF THE REMAND R EPORT, ASSESSING OFFICER CONFIRMED THAT THE SAID CREDITOR HAD ORALLY CONFIRM ED THE ADVANCING OF LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY THE CIT(A) THA T THE SAID CREDITOR HAD FILED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE COUR T OF LAW UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE OBJE CTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE REQUISITE EXPLAN ATION COMING FORTH FROM THE CREDITOR, THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR WAS NOT PROVED. THE CIT(A) NOTICED THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE MATTER AS THE RELATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH SAID CREDITOR WERE STRAINED, T HE CREDITOR WOULD NOT FURNISH THE REQUISITE INFORMATION TO PROVE HIS CREDITWORTHI NESS. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(A) HAS DEEME D IT FIT AND PROPER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS PRIM ARILY REITERATED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKEN IN THE REMAND REPORT TO THE CIT(A) WHICH IS TO THE EFFECT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE REQUISI TE DETAILS FORTHCOMING FROM THE ITA NO.824/PN/2007 ITA NO.887/PN/2007 A.Y. 1999-2000 CREDITOR, THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR WAS NOT PROVED. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE SAID OBJECTION IS NOT FATAL SO AS TO T REAT THE CREDIT AS UNEXPLAINED HAVING REGARD TO THE OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD. OSTE NSIBLY, THE LOAN IN QUESTION HAS BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS WHICH IS DULY CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE TO THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THROUGH HIS INSPECTOR IN REMA ND PROCEEDINGS, THE SAID CREDITOR CONFIRMED ADVANCING OF LOAN TO THE ASSESSE E. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE CREDITOR HAS LODGED RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS A ND THEREFORE, THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE CREDITOR ARE STRAINED. IN THIS BACKGROUND THE CREDITOR DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN FUR NISHING THE REQUISITE DETAILS ABOUT THE CREDITWORTHINESS. CONSIDERING THE OVERALL CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(A) MADE NO MISTAKE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,60,000/- WITH RESPECT TO LOAN RAISED FROM SHRI B.T. GAIKWAD. THUS , ON THIS ASPECT, REVENUE HAS TO FAIL. 9. THE SECOND ASPECT RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS WITH REGARD TO AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,48,582/- REPRESENTING BOOKING ADVANCES/DEP OSITS FROM CUSTOMERS WHICH WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER BUT HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THE DETAIL OF SUCH CREDITORS ARE TABULATED IN PARA 7.1 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). FACTUALLY SPEAKING, IN THI S REGARD, ASSESSEE FURNISHED REQUISITE DETAILS BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHICH WERE FOR WARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD TH E CIT(A) NOTICED THAT ALL THE ABOVE ADVANCES ARE CONFIRMED BY THE CUSTOMERS, AND THE CUSTOMERS CONFIRMED THAT THE AMOUNTS ARE PAID AGAINST SALE OF PLOTS TO THEM. THE CIT(A) ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED M AINLY THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES/DDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REM AND REPORT RAISED AN OBJECTION THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR S HAS NOT BEEN PROVED. THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE SAID OBJECTION AND OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXPECTED TO COLLECT INFORMATION ABOVE CREDITWOR THINESS OF HIS CUSTOMERS ITA NO.824/PN/2007 ITA NO.887/PN/2007 A.Y. 1999-2000 AND THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THEIR ADDRESSES AND CONFIRMATIONS, THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE STOOD DISCH ARGED. THE CIT(A) HAS EMPHASIZED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT APPR ECIATING THE FACT THAT THESE ARE NOT LOANS PER SE BUT ARE ADVANCE SALE PROCEEDS. IN THIS MANNER, THE ADDITION OF RS.12,48,528/- HAS SINCE BEEN DELETED B Y THE CIT(A). 10. BEFORE US, THE STAND OF THE REVENUE REMAINS THE SAME AS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). AS PER THE LEARNED DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FILING OF CONFIRMATION AND THE ADDRESSES OF THE CUS TOMERS DOES NOT IPSO FACTO SHOW THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS ADVANCING THE IMPUGNED SUMS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, REVENUE HAS NO T CONTROVERTED THE POSITION THAT THE NATURE OF THE IMPUGNED SUMS IS ON ACCOUNT OF BOOKING ADVANCES RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF PLOTS. THEREFORE, ONCE IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF LOANS PER SE BUT ARE PART OF SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS, THE ASSESSEE IS N OT EXPECTED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SUCH CREDITORS TO THE HILT. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD BE ENOUGH IF TH E ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE CONFIRMATIONS AND IDENTIFY TH E CUSTOMERS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE REQUISITE CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BEEN OBTAINE D WHICH PROVE THE NATURE OF THE ADVANCES AS ALSO THE IDENTITY OF THE CUSTOME RS. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(A) MADE NO MISTAKE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,48,582/- AND ACCORDINGLY, REVENUE HAS FAILED ON THIS GROUND ALSO . 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. 12. IN SO FAR AS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONC ERNED THE FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) OF RS.13,58,208/- REPRESENTING LOANS, TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED. THE DETAIL S OF RS.13,58,208/- ARE AS UNDER :- ITA NO.824/PN/2007 ITA NO.887/PN/2007 A.Y. 1999-2000 1. V.D. PENDSE RS.3,20,000/- 2. SHREE BUILDERS RS.10,00,000/- 3. KINETIC FINANCE LTD. RS.38,208/- TOTAL RS. 13,58,208/- 13. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION BY THE CIT(A) IS CONTAI NED IN PARAS 6.1 AND 6.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE CONFIRMATION OF TH E CREDITORS I.E. THEIR ADDRESSES, PAN NOS. AND ALSO COULD NOT PROVE THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY FRESH MATERI AL TO PROVE THE IMPUGNED CREDITS, INASMUCH AS THERE IS NO MATERIAL SO AS TO EXPLAIN THE IDENTITY, OR CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR OR EVEN THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY SUST AINED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION INVOKING SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. WE HEREBY AFFIRM TH E SAME. 14. ONLY OTHER ASPECT RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPE AL IS WITH REGARD TO AN ADDITION OF RS.9,05,152/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) O UT OF THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION IN THIS REG ARD IS CONTAINED IN PARAS 7.2 AND 7.5 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE DETAILS OF RS.9,05,152/- ARE AS UNDER :- 1. R.M. SOMWANSHI RS.1,51,000/- 2. AMRUTKUMAR SHASHIKANT W. RS.1,00,000/- 3. CHAUDHARI C.G. RS.24,000/- 4. KULKARNI YESHWANT V. RS.1,16,250/- 5. METKAR SANDEEP BALKRISHNA RS.15,000/- 6. BEDSE SHIVAJI SHANKAR RS.7,500/- 7. KIRAN DHAVE RS.80,000/- 8. KATHE SUSHMA DATTATRAYA RS.50,000/- 9. MEENAKUMARI SHARMA RS.1,70,000/- 10. PHULE V.M. RS.1,000/- 11. BIRAD KRISHNA DATTATRAYA RS.81,000/- 12. MRS. V.M. DHAKE RS.50,000/- 13. D.B. KATARY RS.40,500/- 14. M.T.PATEL RS.3,001/- 15. SMT. MEENA B. VISPUTE RS.15,000/- 16. DETAILS NOT AVAILABLE RS.901/- TOTAL RS. 9,05,152/- ITA NO.824/PN/2007 ITA NO.887/PN/2007 A.Y. 1999-2000 15. IN SO FAR AS THE AMOUNTS STANDING IN THE NAMES OF D.B.KATARY- RS.40,500/-, M.T. PATEL - RS.3,001/-, SMT. MEENA B. VISPUTE - RS.15,000/- AND THE OTHER BALANCE RS.901/- IS CONCERNED, IN OUR VIE W, THE SAME HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). AS PER THE DISCUSS ION CONTAINED IN PARAS 7.3, 7.4 AND 7.5 IT IS SEEN THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS S TOOD UNCONFIRMED AND UNPROVED. IN THE CASE OF SHRI D.B. KATARY, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER SUBMITTED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS ISSUE D TO THE SAID PERSON, HE DENIED HAVING PAID ANY ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF PLOT FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF ADVANCE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED FROM SH RI M.T. PATEL THERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME AND IT WAS ALS O CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN CASH. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO SMT. ME ENA B. VISPUTE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS RS.1,65,000/- OU T OF WHICH THE CREDITOR CONFIRMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,50,000/- AND THE BA LANCE OF RS.15,000 HAS BEEN HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED BY THE CIT(A). WE HAVE NO REASON TO DIFFER FROM THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) AS NO NEW MATERIAL HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE US. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION WITH REGARD TO SUM OF RS.90 1/- ADDED BY THE CIT(A). 16. NOW, WE MAY CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE OF R S.8,45,750/- CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED FROM 12 PERSONS STATED AS ITEM NO. 1 TO 12 IN THE ABOVE TABULATION. THE SAID AMOUNT HAVE BEEN TREATED AN UN EXPLAINED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE ABSENCE OF THE REQUISITE CONFIRMATION LETTER S OR OTHER DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THIS ISSUE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE SAID SUMS HAVE BEEN RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF SELLING PLOT S OF LAND AND THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS GOING THROUGH BUSINESS CRISIS AT THE T IME OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, HE WAS NOT ABLE TO GET APPRO PRIATE CONFIRMATION FROM THE CUSTOMERS. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FUR NISHED A COMPILATION OF 18 PAGES COMPRISING OF COPIES OF PROPOSED AGREEMENTS T O SELL PLOTS WITH SUCH CUSTOMERS. ON THIS BASIS, IT IS SOUGHT TO BE MADE O UT THAT THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF NORMAL BUSINESS ACTI VITY, AND THE ASSESSEE BE ITA NO.824/PN/2007 ITA NO.887/PN/2007 A.Y. 1999-2000 ALLOWED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE REQUISITE EVIDENC E WITH RESPECT TO THE AFORESAID SUMS SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN A POSIT ION TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS. 17. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ADJUDICAT ED THE MATTER AFTER ALLOWING REQUISITE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE SAME AND THU S NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY BE ALLOWED AT THE PRESENT STAGE. 18. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. OSTENSIBLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES DO SUGGEST THAT THE RE WAS LAXITY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FURNISHING THE REQUISITE MATERIAL I N SUPPORT OF THE CREDITS IN QUESTION. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO EMERGING FROM THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT MOST OF THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY CHE QUES/DDS AND THE SAME WERE FOUND NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BA NK STATEMENTS OBTAINED DIRECTLY FROM THE BANKS. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CAS E WHERE ANY FALSITY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD BUT IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE THE REQUISITE MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE CREDITS IN QUESTION. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF CI RCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON HIM TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE IMPUGNED CREDI TORS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WITH THE SAID PURPOSE, WE DE EM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPUGNED CREDITS OF RS.8,45,750/-, AS DETAILED ABOV E. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW THE ASSESSEE A REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE AFORESAID CREDITS TO T HE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER SHALL PASS AN ORDER AFRESH ON THIS LIMITED ASPECT AS PER LAW. THUS, ON THIS ASPECT, ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.824/PN/2007 ITA NO.887/PN/2007 A.Y. 1999-2000 19. RESULTANTLY, WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH AUGUST, 2013. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 28 TH AUGUST, 2013 SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK; 4) THE CIT-I, NASHIK; 5) THE DR, B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE