Ganpati International, Jagroan V. Pr. CIT-3, Ludhiana

ITA 932/CHANDI/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ganpati International Railway Link Road against the order of the PCIT-III, Ludhiana, which had set aside the assessment order concerning the creditworthiness and genuineness of unsecured loans amounting to Rs.3,22,89,000 received during the assessment year 2015-16. The PCIT had contended that the Assessing Officer failed to investigate the loans adequately, leading to a revision of the assessment order. The Tribunal, however, found that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries and accepted the loans as genuine based on the comprehensive documentation and explanations provided by the assessee. The Tribunal criticized the PCIT for not applying his mind to the facts and for relying solely on the audit objections without substantiating how the assessment was erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115342 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Rajinder Chauhan vs. PCIT, CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packaging Products and Camphor Works, Mannesmann Demag A.G. vs. DCIT, Kulbir Singh vs. ACIT, Preyag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. vs. CIT, Braham Deve Gupta vs. PCIT, New Delhi, Annu Agrotech (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT, Nilkanth Stone Industries vs. PCIT, Valsad, Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT, Smt. Nagina Kochar vs. The PCIT-1, Chandigarh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Audit objection; Assessment record; TDS; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 68; 263; 44AD; 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 208; 13; 22; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.932/CHD/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ganpati International Railway Link Road Jagroan, Punjab v. The PCIT-III Ludhiana PAN:AAHFG7821L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Y. K. Sud, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT Date of hearing: 27 02 2023 Date of pronouncement: 16 03 2023 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order dated 26.3.2019 passed by the PCIT-III, Ludhiana, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. There is a delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. As per application dated 15.6.2019, which is accompanied by an affidavit of the partner of the Assessee-firm, the appeal was to be filed by 2.6.2019, but it was filed with a delay of 16 days, which occurred due to foreign trip of Shri Kumar Gaurav, partner of the Assessee-firm and the illness of his father. Vide application dated 26.8.2021, the Assessee filed a copy of the passport of the aforesaid partner, showing that the assessee had travelled to Uganda on a business trip during the relevant period. Further, a certificate from Karan Singla Surgical & General Hospital, Jagraon has been filed, certifying that the father of the partner of the Assessee-firm was admitted in the said hospital from 17.5.2019 to 31.5.2019, prior to his admission in the PGI, Chandigarh. Page 2 of 31 A copy of the discharge summary of Shri Gian Chand Gupta, father of Shri Kumar Gaurav, partner of the Assessee-firm, from PGI, Chandigarh has also been filed. 3. From the above, evidently, the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the Assessee-firm. The assessee, was, therefore, prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. In view of these facts, the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The relevant facts of the case are that as per the impugned order, on perusal of the assessment record, the ld. PCIT found that the assessee had received unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.2 crores during the year under consideration. The ld. PCIT opined that the Assessing Officer was required to investigate the creditworthiness and genuineness of these unsecured loans; that however, the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct any enquiry in this regard; that the Assessing Officer completely relied on whatever documents were furnished by the assessee; that the Assessing Officer did not bother to investigate (a) that most of the lenders (unsecured loans) opened their bank accounts in one bank branch, namely Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jagraon Mandi Branch, in which, the assessee had also been operating its bank account, (b) that most of the lenders had filed their returns of income through the same Counsel who had been engaged by the assessee, (c) that most of the lenders had filed their returns of income under section 44AD of the Act, that in most of the cases, the net profit shown in the return of income of the lender was equal to the total turnover of the lender, which was not possible, and (d) that in most of the cases, the lenders had shown business income under section 44AD of the Act, whereas no nature of business stood declared in the return. The ld. PCIT further observed that the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness and existence of the persons from whom the assessee had received loans, had not at all Page 3 of 31 been investigated/examined/verified, which was evident from the fact that the assessment had been completed on the same day as on which date the details in this regard had been filed by the assessee for the first time. The ld. PCIT observed that with regard to these issues, the Assessing Officer had accepted the replies furnished by the assessee without any verification/investigation/enquiry; that it was evident that the assessment order had been passed by the Assessing Officer without making enquiries/verifications and investigations; that the Assessing Officer had failed to look into these issues and had framed the assessment without application of mind; that the Assessing Officer had simply relied on whatever submissions had been made by the assessee, and had accepted them; that in this case, it was logical to enquire into the source and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans; that in such cases, the vital piece of enquiry is that which establishes, through evidence, the genuineness or otherwise of the transaction; that the Assessing Officer did not look into it, thereby completely failing to look into the three mandatory parameters of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction; and that clearly, the assessee had not discharged its onus of establishing the genuineness of the transactions and the Assessing Officer did not make even very basic enquiry on it. The ld. PCIT, as such, set aside the assessment order to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order in accordance with law, in respect of the issue discussed, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the assessee that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny vide notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act; that further, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued, in response to which, the assessee filed reply dated 28.3.2017; that in the said reply, in respect of unsecured loans accepted by the assessee during the year, amounting to Page 4 of 31 Rs.3,22,89,000/-, the details of all the unsecured loans were annexed; and that these details are: (i) Detailed chart of unsecured loans, (ii) Copy of ledger account of the unsecured loan creditors, duly confirmed by the creditors with PAN mentioned in the same, reflecting receipts of the amount or any payment made in the account and also interest paid on the unsecured loans with TDS made on the same, (iii) Copy of income tax return along with computation of income, of the loan creditors, wherein, the interest received from the creditors also stands reflected, and (iv) Copy of bank account of creditors, wherein, the cheque issued to the assessee/RTGS has been reflected and also the source of source has been shown, in respect of the unsecured loan creditors. 6. It has been contended that therefore, the identity of the creditors has been established, the amounts have been received through banking channels, the loan creditors are independently assessed to income tax, the bank accounts of the creditors from where the loans have been granted and also the source of the creditors reflected in that bank account, has been filed, out of the total 29 loan creditors, 15 are old loan creditors, which have been accepted by the Department as genuine in earlier years, the source of source reflected by the creditors has no nexus with the assessee, which could prove that the assessee is indulging in capital formation and rotating its own income, as tried to be made out by the ld. PCIT and the Auditor, in the proceedings under section 263 of the Act, and the interest has been paid to the loan creditors on the amount of loan which has been assessed in the hands of the creditors and also interest is allowed as Page 5 of 31 expenditure to the assessee during the year under consideration, in earlier years as well as in subsequent years. 7. It has further been contended on behalf of the assessee that after passing of the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, a notice dated 6.4.2018, for remedial action, was issued by the Assessing Officer, on the basis of the internal audit objection; that this notice is factually incorrect and has been based merely on assumptions and presumptions; that in the last para of the said notice, it has been mentioned that out of Rs.5.84 cores of unsecured loans, an amount of Rs.2 crores is required to be treated as unexplained; that the assessee, on the other hand, explained that it had, in fact, accepted unsecured loans amounting to Rs.3,22,89,000/- only during the year, and not of Rs.5.84 crores, as stated in the notice, and no unsecured loan of Rs.2 crores had been accepted by the assessee; and that this figure of Rs.2 crores was merely an ad-hoc amount. 8. It has further been stated that notice dated 23.8.2018 was issued under section 263 of the Act; that this notice was, again, based on the internal audit objection; that in para 3 of the said notice, the ld. PCIT has again referred to the unsecured loans of Rs.2 crores, without making reference to any loan creditors; that this, once again, is an ad- hoc figure; that in its reply to the show cause notice issued under section 263 of the Act, the assessee stated [APB:192, para 2] that the version given therein is factually incorrect, since an amount of Rs.4.78 crores has wrongly been considered as unsecured cash credits accepted by the assessee, as against the actual figure of Rs.3,22,89,000/-, the details of which were filed before the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings and which details were considered by the Assessing Officer to his satisfaction, while framing the assessment order; that the matter was once again explained to the ld. PCIT in the assessee’s reply, giving all the details of the fresh cash credits accepted by the assessee; that the attention of the ld. PCIT was Page 6 of 31 specifically drawn towards all the evidences filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment; that the ld. PCIT however, completely ignored the reply of the assessee as well as the evidence available on the record and cancelled the assessment by simply relying on the audit objection; that the audit objection is no ground for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act; that there was no material whatsoever with the ld. PCIT, which could have suggested that the Assessing Officer, at the time of assessment, had not verified the genuineness of the loan creditors, amounting to the ad- hoc figure of Rs.2 crores; that as per the ld. PCIT, deep-rooted enquiries were required to be made before accepting the claim of the assessee; that thus, it is not the PCIT’s case that the Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry while accepting the cash credits as genuine; that in fact, the ld. PCIT has tried to substitute his own view in place of the perfectly plausible view of the Assessing Officer; that this, however, is nowhere permissible under section 263 of the Act; that the ld. PCIT has not pointed out any specific defect in the order of the Assessing Officer, made while accepting the cash credits as genuine; that it was not pointed out as to which cash credit is not genuine, amounting to Rs.2 crores; that both, the internal auditor, as well as the ld. PCIT did not point out any defect with the cash credits accepted by the assessee; that complete evidence in respect of cash credits, amounting to Rs.3,22,89,000/-, was filed with and examined by the Assessing Officer; that the ld. PCIT has failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 68 of the Act are deeming provisions and no ad-hoc addition can be made thereunder, while verifying the cash credits, due to which reason also, the order passed by the ld. PCIT cannot be sustained; that the ld. PCIT has also failed to take into consideration the fact that the assessee had duly paid interest to all the depositors, which expenditure had been allowed as genuine expenditure in the year under consideration, as also in the earlier and subsequent years; Page 7 of 31 and that for these reasons, the order under appeal be quashed, on allowing the appeal of the assessee. 9. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. It has been contended that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was an order of ten lines, passed without discussing any issue, without making any verification of unsecured loans; that the notice dated 26.12.2016, issued under section 142(1) of the Act, called for only calculation of net profit, trading account, computation chart and audit report, etc., without raising any query on the unsecured loans; that vide notice dated 10.2.2017, the only evidence regarding the genuineness of the unsecured loans was called for; that no question was asked with regard to the creditworthiness of the unsecured loan creditors; that it was only on 28.3.2017, after seeking various adjournments, that the assessee finally submitted the details before the Assessing Officer, stretching the case to the time barring date, so as to prevent the Assessing Officer from conducting any meaningful enquiry, so that the assessment order was passed on the very day on which the assessee placed the details before the Assessing Officer, i.e., on 28.3.2017; that therefore, evidently, there was a complete lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer inasmuch as not even a single query was raised by the Assessing Officer with regard to the creditworthiness of the assessee’s loans; that it is this issue which has been, and rightly so, highlighted by the ld. PCIT in the order under appeal; that as such, it is clear that there was no application of mind to the issue at hand by the Assessing Officer; that neither any intention of examination, nor any evidence of actual examination of the issue by the Assessing Officer is available from the record; that in fact, it would be humanly impossible to analyze the data furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer on the very date of passing of the assessment order; that moreover, the Assessing Officer had only partial data available Page 8 of 31 with him; and that thus, in the real sense, this is a case of complete lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer. It has been contended that as against the argument of the assessee that there is no application of mind by the ld. PCIT, it is evident from para 5 of the impugned order that the ld. PCIT has, in fact, applied his mind; that the ld. PCIT has mentioned that the Assessing Officer was required to investigate the creditworthiness of the unsecured loans and while doing so, the ld. PCIT has given the salient issues which raise a doubt with regard to the creditworthiness of the lenders; that no doubt, it was a case which was selected for limited scrutiny, however, since huge increase of unsecured loans was one of the issues of limited scrutiny, it was mandatory for the Assessing Officer to have examined the issue of unsecured loans; and that apropos the assessee’s objection that the impugned order is based merely on the audit objection, reliance was being placed on the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ‘Rajinder Chauhan vs. PCIT’, order dated 21.7.2022, in ITA No.308/CHD/2020, wherein, it was held that a mechanical exercise of revisionary power by merely citing the audit objection cannot be said to be a valid exercise of such power, that the ld. PCIT is required to give an independent finding, considering the record and pointing out the error in the order of the Assessing Officer, which error is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Reliance was placed on C.B.D.T Instruction No.7/2017, dated 21.7.2017, laying down the Standard Operating Procedure to enable receipt/Revenue audit objections, and stating that it is incumbent upon the ld. PCIT to take action under section 263 of the Act on the acceptance of the audit objection. Reliance was placed on ‘CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packaging Products and Camphor Works’, 96 Taxman 1 (SC). Reliance was also placed on ‘Mannesmann Demag A.G. vs. DCIT’, 53 ITD 533 (Del.). Apropos the assessee’s contention that the assessment order was neither erroneous, nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, Page 9 of 31 it has been contended by the Department that as was the case herein, the Assessing Officer’s action of just raising a query and just receiving information filed by the assessee does not amount to enquiry, rendering the assessment order both erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Reliance was placed on ‘Shri Ashwani Marwah vs. Pr. CIT, Shimla’, order dated 23.2.2022, passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT, in ITA No.307/CHD/2020, for assessment year 2015-16, ‘Anil Kumar vs. ACIT’, 147 Taxman 5 (Delhi), ‘Ambika Agro Suppliers vs. ITO, W-2(6), Jalgaon’, 95 ITD 326 (Pune), ‘CIT vs. Active Traders (P) Ltd.’, 214 ITR 583 (Cal.), ‘Denial Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO’, order dated 10.4.2017, passed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, in G.A. No.599 of 2016 with ITA No.118 of 2016, ‘Denial Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO’, order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, passed in Appeal No.23976/2017, dismissing the SLPs filed against the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, ‘Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT’, 386 ITR 162 (Cal.), ‘Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT, Kolkatta-III’, 77 Taxmann.com 285 (SC), dismissing the SLP filed against the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, ‘Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-3’ , order dated 31.5.2022, passed by the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT, in ITA No.895/Mum/2021, for assessment year 2015-16 and ITA No.896/Mum/2021, for assessment year 2016-17, and ‘Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (Central), Rajasthan’, order dated 9.3.2018, passed by the Jaipur Bench of the ITAT, in ITA No.440/JP/2017. It has been contended that in all these cases, it has been laid down that mere calling for information and putting it on record is not sufficient, unless detailed, proper and meaningful enquiry is conducted by the Assessing Officer to investigate the issue. 10. It has further been contended that as per chart submitted by the assessee itself, the net figure of loans increased during the year is Page 10 of 31 about Rs.2 crores; that the case was selected for scrutinizing the increase in loans; that the figure of Rs.2 crores is, therefore, not an ad- hoc figure, as tried to be made out by the assessee; that the Assessing Officer did not examine the creditworthiness of the lenders; that therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer had examined the full loan transactions; and that the Assessing Officer also ignored that prima facie, the lenders appeared to be men of no means, calling for a thorough examination of the creditworthiness of such lenders, sans which, mere filing of the return of income, PAN and bank account statement is not sufficient. 11. In its rejoinder, the assessee has contended that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has clearly stated that he has placed all the documents on record and has considered and discussed the same with the Counsel of the assessee; that therefore, it is incorrect to contend that the assessment order was only of ten lines and contained no discussion on any issue; that it has been wrongly submitted by the Department that the Assessing Officer has not raised any question regarding creditworthiness of the unsecured loans; and that para 2(ii) of the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act clearly raised the following query: “furnish necessary evidence regarding the genuineness of the unsecured loans received during the year by giving their complete address, PAN, whether assessed to income tax or not, and their confirmed copies of accounts. Also explain the reason for much (sic) huge increase of unsecured loans during the year”. 12. It was contended that the assessee made full compliance of the aforesaid query, by furnishing complete address, PAN, copies of income tax returns and confirmed copies of accounts of the creditors; that even the bank accounts of the creditors, wherein the source stood reflected, was furnished; that the ld. PCIT had no power to substitute his own opinion for that of the Assessing Officer, the view taken by the Page 11 of 31 Assessing Officer being a plausible view; that the contention of the Department that it was humanly impossible for the Assessing Officer to analyse the data furnished by the assessee, and to pass the assessment order on the same day as on which such data was furnished by the assessee, is unsustainable; that the Assessing Officer has specifically mentioned that he has considered all the documents placed on record; that it cannot be said that the ld. PCIT applied his mind while passing the impugned order; that in para 5 of the impugned order, the ld. PCIT stated that the assessee had received unsecured loans of Rs.2 crores, whereas, in fact, the assessee had accepted the unsecured loans of Rs.3,22,89,000/-; that the ld. PCIT did not apply his mind even to the reply to the show cause notice, as filed by the assessee; that in the said reply, in para 4 thereof, the complete details regarding the loans were filed before the ld. PCIT, as had been done before the Assessing Officer; that the ld. PCIT did not point out any defect whatsoever therein, thereby demonstrating non- application of mind; that even in the show cause notice, the figure of unsecured loans has been given at Rs.2 crores, again, showing non- application of mind by the ld. PCIT, when he gives this ad-hoc imaginary figure; that in fact, the show cause notice is a copy and paste of the internal audit objection; that ‘CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma’, 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) is directly on this issue; that as against ‘Rajinder Chaundary’ (supra) and ‘Shri Ashwani Marwah’ (supra), in ‘CIT vs. Sohana Woolen Mills’, 296 ITR 238 (P&H), the C.B.D.T. Instruction No.17/2017, dated 21.7.2017, which was followed in ‘Rajinder Chaundary’ (supra) and ‘Shri Ashwani Marwah’ (supra), was not followed; and that in case the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court was still not being followed, the matter was required to be referred for constitution of a larger Bench, to put the issue at rest. Page 12 of 31 13. We have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the material placed on record. 14. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny vide notice dated 29.7.2016, issued under section 43(2) of the Act. Therein, inter alia, the issue of unsecured loans was identified for examination. A copy of the said notice has been placed at pages 9 & 10 of the assessee’s paper book (‘APB’ for short). A notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued. In response to this notice, the assessee filed reply dated 28.3.2017 (APB:11). Along with the said reply, confirmed copies of account of various unsecured loans, along with proof of fresh additions (if any), were enclosed. The said details have been filed before us at pages 1 to 139 of the APB. These details consist of: (i) Detailed chart of unsecured loans. Pages 1-2 of paper book. (ii) Copy of ledger account of the unsecured Loan creditors duly confirmed by the creditors with the PAN mentioned in the same. The said copy of accounts reflects the receipts of the amount or any payment made in account and also the interest paid on unsecured loans with TDS deducted on the same. (iii) Copy of Income Tax return along with computation of income of the loan creditors wherein the interest received from the creditors also have reflected. (iv) Copy of the Bank account of the creditors wherein the cheque issued to the assessee/RTGS has been reflected and also the source of source has been depicted. This information is given in respect of all the unsecured loan creditors details of which are available on pages 1-139 of the paper book. 15. In this regard, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has specifically noted that the requisite information/documents, as called for vide questionnaire and order sheet, were produced, which were gone through; and that after going through all the facts and Page 13 of 31 documents available on file, the case was discussed with the ld. Counsel of the assessee and after discussion, the returned income of the assessee, declared at Rs.8.26 lakhs, was accepted. The Department says that it is humanly impossible to examine the documents in respect of 29 cash credits and to pass the assessment order on the same date, as on which this voluminous evidence was filed by the assessee. This, however, is belied by the fact that the Assessing Officer made a specific observation in the assessment order, as above, that he had gone through all the facts and documents available on file and that the matter was discussed with the ld.Counsel for the assessee. It is not the case of the Department that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is not a plausible view and that being so, invocation of revisionary proceedings was uncalled for. As rightly contended, it cannot be pleaded that since the details are not mentioned in the order, the order is a cryptic order and that no enquiries were carried out by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, in ‘CIT vs. Chandan Magraj Parmar’, 445 ITR 674 (Bom.), it was held that the PCIT cannot decide how elaborate an order of the Assessing Officer should be; that where the Assessing Officer, during the scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act, had raised a query which was answered by the assessee to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, but it was not reflected in the assessment order passed by him, the PCIT cannot conclude that no proper enquiry with respect to the issue was made by the Assessing Officer that would enable him to assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act; that the Tribunal had given a finding that the claim of capital gain was accepted by the Assessing Officer after necessary enquiry and it was thereafter that the order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed; that it was true that the Assessing Officer had not passed any written detailed order while accepting the explanation of the assessee with regard to capital gains, but the fact was that the Assessing Officer had Page 14 of 31 raised queries and the assessee had given detailed reply, which meant that the Assessing Officer had passed his order after making necessary enquiries; that they (the Hon'ble Court) agreed with the view of the Tribunal that the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be branded as erroneous merely because the order does not contain the details which the PCIT feels should have been included. Their Lordships found support form ‘CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd.’, 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), wherein it was held that the power of suo motu revision under sub- section (1) of section 263 of the Act is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist; that if the Income Tax Officer, acting in accordance with law, makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the CIT simply because according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately; that this section does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the CIT for that of the Assessing Officer who passed the order, unless the decision is held to be erroneous; that cases may be visualized where the Income Tax Officer, while making an assessment, examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income either by accepting the accounts, or by making some estimate himself; that the CIT, on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion that the estimate made by the Officer concerned was on the lower side and, left to the CIT, he would have estimated the income on a figure higher than the one determined by the Income Tax Officer; that that would not vest the CIT with the power to re-examine the accounts and determine the income himself, at a higher figure; that this is because the Income Tax Officer has exercised the quasi judicial power vested in him in accordance with the law and has arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the CIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion; that it may be said in such a case that in the opinion of Page 15 of 31 the CIT, the order in question is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; that that by itself will not be enough to vest the CIT with the power of suo motu revision because the first requirement, namely, that the order is erroneous, is absent; that similarly, if an order is erroneous but not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, then also, the power of suo motu revision cannot be exercised; that any and every erroneous order cannot be subject matter of revision because the second requirement also must be fulfilled; and that there must be some prima-facie material on record to show that the tax which was lawfully exigible, has not been imposed. It was on this reasoning that the order passed by the Tribunal was confirmed while dismissing the appeal filed by the Department, as not raising any substantial questions of law. 16. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, in this regard, has held in ‘Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT’, 263 ITR 437 (P&H), that the assessee has no control over the way an assessment order is drafted; that in that case the assessee had had produced necessary evidence that there was no discrepancy either in cash or in the stock; that the Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee's explanation in respect of cash and added Rs.50,000/- to its total income; that however, the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation in respect of difference in stock; that the record also showed that the contention of the assessee was found to be correct on verification and, therefore, the Assessing Officer had accepted the contention of the assessee that in fact, there was no discrepancy in stock; and that the Tribunal had decided the matter against the assessee, basing its findings entirely on the fact that there was no mention in the assessment order about the inquiries made by the Assessing Officer regarding the discrepancy in stock. It was held that this was not the correct approach, as was evident from the provisions of section 263(1) of the Act; that in the absence of any suggestion by the CIT as to how the enquiry was not proper, the action Page 16 of 31 taken by him under section 263 of the Act could not be sustained; and that thus, the findings of the Tribunal were liable to be reversed and the order of the CIT was liable to be set aside. 17. In ‘Smt. Nagina Kochar vs. The PCIT-1, Chandigarh’, order dated 6.12.2022, passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal, co-authored by one of us – the ld. Accountant Member, in ITA No.24/CHD/2021, for assessment year 2016-17, it has been held that since as per record, the assessment order is passed after making full and proper enquiries on the issues and after examining the facts, and the view taken is legally sustainable, the assessment order is a valid order in the eyes of law; that merely because there is no discussion on the issues in the assessment order, this fact by itself also cannot lead to the conclusion that the order is an order passed without looking into the relevant facts; that where on facts evidenced from the nature of the queries raised and the reply available thereon, a plausible view is taken by the Assessing Officer, a vested right is created in favour of the assessee; that the Revisionary Authority, referring necessarily to the assessment records available, has to demonstrate in its order itself that the assessment order passed is an unsustainable order necessitating resort to the the powers vested by Section 263 of the Act; that the powers vested under section 263 of the Act are not to be exercised merely because the powers are so vested; that for unsettling a vested right accrued to the assessee by the passing of a valid order, it is necessary and incumbent upon the Revisionary Authority to set out the error and the prejudice caused by the assessment order; and that the Revisionary Authority necessarily needs to see the records as available to the Assessing Officer, and the Revisionary order cannot be passed on mere whims and fancies. 18. It will be pertinent to note that filing of the above information by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, as well as the ld. PCIT has not been disputed. From such evidence, undeniably, the identity of Page 17 of 31 the creditors stands proved. The amount having been received through banking channels is also established. The loan creditors are all independently assessed to Income Tax. Not only the source, but also the source of the source of the loans has been placed on record by filing the bank account of the creditors and also the source of the creditors themselves, as reflected in that bank account. It also stands accepted by the Department itself, that out of total 29 loan creditors, 15 creditors are old loan creditors, whose loans have been accepted as genuine in the earlier years. The source of the source as shown by the creditors does not prove the assessee to be indulging in capital formation or to be routing his own income, as sought to be made out in the impugned order. With regard to the loans, the interest paid by the assessee to the creditors stands assessed in the hands of the creditors. This apart, the interest has been allowed as expenditure to the assessee not only during the year under consideration, but also in the earlier as well as subsequent years. 19. So far as regards the internal audit objection, in the notice, it was mentioned that out of Rs.5.84 crores, unsecured loans of Rs.2 crores were required to be treated as unexplained. As explained by the assessee before the Assessing Officer by virtue of reply dated 23.4.2018 (APB:187-188), in fact, the assessee had accepted fresh unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.3,22,89,000/- only, and not of Rs.5.84 crores. Further, no unsecured loans of Rs.2 crores were there. Therefore, the ld. PCIT erred in raising the issue of alleged unsecured loans of Rs.2 crores to have been accepted by the assessee, whereas as to from whom such amount of unsecured loans had been accepted by the assessee, stood nowhere mentioned in the notice. Even the order under appeal does not make mention of any such loan creditor. 20. In its reply dated 23.8.2018 (APB:192 – 202), the assessee also pointed out to the ld. PCIT that the figure of Rs.4.78 crores, as taken by the Assessing Officer in his notice dated 6.4.2018, was Page 18 of 31 incorrect, in as much as the actual figure of unsecured loans was Rs.3,22,89,000/- and that the Assessing Officer had erroneously clubbed the figures of unsecured loans taken during the year and unsecured loans repaid during the year; and that the difference of the loans taken at Rs.3,22,89,000/- and the loans repaid, of Rs.1,13,03,863/-, amounted to Rs.2 crores. This, again, has not been disputed by the ld. PCIT. The ld. PCIT, in fact, has not as much as even referred to the assessee’s reply dated 23.8.2018, rendering the order under appeal to be a result of complete non-reading of the said reply filed by the Assessee. 21. It would be appropriate, at this juncture, to note herein, the evidence, the source, the amount and the creditor’s name, with regard to the thirty loans taken by the assessee during the year, amounting to Rs.3,22,89,000/-: Sl. No. Name As per Notice Amount of Loan Taken Amount of Loan Repaid 01. Ashish Singla 510000/- 510000/- 02. Jatinder Kumar 200000 /- 200000/- 03. Jatinder Kumar HUF 2020000/- 2020000/- 04. Madhu Gupta 2025000/- 2025000/- 05. Manju Rani 1680000/- 1680000/- 06. Manju Singla 740000/- 740000/- 07. Rajesh Kumar & Songs HUF 3690000/- 3690000/- 08. Rajiv Aggarwal 1050000/- 1050000/- 09. Ram Kanwar 45000/- 45000/- 10. Ram Kanwar HUF 265000/- 265000/- 11. Shri Bhagwati Agro Mills 2000000/- 2000000/ - Page 19 of 31 12. Komal Aggarwal 950000/- 950000/- 13. Rajnish Jain 1010000/- 1010000/- 14. Rohini 520000/- 520000/- 15. Abhishek Jain 350000/- 1350000/- 16. Gian Ghand HUF 468000/- * 468000/- * 17. Gupta & Co. 500000/- 500000/- 18. Harpal Singh 1000000/- 1000000/- 19. Kaler Trading Cb.h 500000/- 500000/ - 20. Kamla Rani 2700000/- 2700000/ - 21. Krishan Kumar 800000/- 800000/- 22. Madan Mohan Bansal HUF 500000/- 500000/- 23. Surjiv Kurnar HUF 4670000 / - 4670000/- 24. Usha Rani 538000/- 538000/ - 25. Parminder Singh & Co. 1000000/ - 1000000/ - 26. Rabia Aggarwal 830000 / - 830000/ - 27. Rajeev Jain 600000/- 600000/ - 28. Rajneesh Jain HUF 200000/- 200000/ - 29. Sakshi Jain 660000/- 660000/ - 30. Shivani Singla 268000/- 268000/- 31. Jatinder Kumar 500000/- 500000/- 32. Jatinder Kumar HUF 1200000/- 1200000/ - 33. Rajesh Kumar HUF 10000/- 10000/- 34. Shivani Singla 5000/ - 5000/- 35. Shri Bhagwati Agro Mills 2000000/- 2000000/- Page 20 of 31 36. Surjiv Kumar 1440000/- 1440000/- 37. Surjiv Kumar HUF 10000/- 10000/- 38. Ram Kanwar HUF 55000/- 55000/- 39. Rohini 20000/- 20000 /- 40. Rajneesh Jain HUF 202416/- 202416/- 41. Parminder Singh & Co. 1000000/- 1000000/- 42. Abhishek Jain 353797/- 353797/- 43. Ashish Jain 1000000/- 1000000/- 44. Gian Chand HUF 1500/- 1500/- 45. Gupta & Co. 500000/- 500000/- 46. Harpal Singh 1500000/- 1000000/- 47. Kamla Rani 1500000/- 1500000/- ' 48. Madan Mohan Bansal 506150/- 506150/- Total 4,35,92,863/- 3,22,89,000/- 1,13,03,863/- *Difference in Entry no. 16 (46,80,000 - 4,68,000) 42,12,0007- 4,78,04,863/- 3,22,89,000 1,13,03,863/- 22. The above details were furnished by the assessee before the ld. PCIT, as part of its reply (para 4 of the said reply, at APB: 195-201). 23. The assessee also stated before the ld. PCIT that though the Assessing Officer, in his notice, has stated that out of total unsecured loans of Rs.5.84 crores, a sum of Rs.2 crores was not genuine, thereby accepting that the unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.3.84 crores were genuine, he has not pointed out as to which specific unsecured loans of Rs.2 crores were not genuine and for what particular reason. The assessee also stated that even third party confirmations in respect of Page 21 of 31 new unsecured loans taken by the assessee during the year, had been filed before the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings; that the assessee had filed all the requisite information before the Assessing Officer, so as to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the new unsecured loans taken; that all these evidences had been filed at one go; and that the Assessing Officer had accepted the same after examining them with due application of mind, finding no specific defect therein. Again, the impugned order is quite qua these specific pleadings of the assessee. 24. In ‘Kulbir Singh vs. ACIT’, 124 TTJ 1 (Agra) (TM), it has been held that where cash creditors were identified and they had also furnished proof of the source from which they had offered credits to the assessee and in most of the cases, they were all assessed to tax and the transactions had been conducted through regular banking channels, the cash credits were to be accepted as genuine. 25. In ‘Preyag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. vs. CIT’, 400 ITR 120 (Jharkhand), it was held where the assessee had given support of the amount received from a particular person with necessary documents, such as copies of demand draft and cheques, no addition could have been made in respect of the amounts received by the assessee; and that in view of the amounts having been received through account payee cheques or bank drafts, the assessee could not have been asked about the source of income of its creditors. 26. In ‘Braham Deve Gupta vs. PCIT, New Delhi’, 88 taxmann.com 831 (Del) (Trib.), it was held that where the assessee brought on record the audited profit & loss account, balance sheet, statement of affairs and capital account, which were duly examined and the Assessing Officer had also verified the books of account, vouchers, etc., there was no question of lack of enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer; and that where the assessee submitted complete details of unsecured loans along with the confirmation of each of the transactions, bank accounts Page 22 of 31 of each of the persons and I.T. acknowledgement of return of each lender, from whom unsecured loans were availed, and the Assessing Officer had duly examined the same during the assessment, it could not be a case of lack of enquiry. 27. In ‘Annu Agrotech (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT’, 220 TTJ 657 (Pune), it has been held that for invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, it is essential to first ingrain that the point in question could have been decided against the assessee, which the Assessing Officer either did not examine, or decided wrongly after examination; that but if the point is of such a nature that it cannot go against the assessee, even after thorough examination, that would not lead to classifying the assessment order erroneous, even if there is no discussion thereof in the assessment order; and that as such, it becomes sine qua non on the part of the ld. PCIT to specifically point out as to how the decision of the Assessing Officer in allowing the deduction on a particular point is erroneous. 28. In ‘Nilkanth Stone Industries vs. PCIT, Valsad’, 189 ITD 718 (Surat), it was held that where during the scrutiny assessment, the assessee had submitted all the relevant details regarding loans and advances given by it to a person and had explained that the said advance was returned back in the next year, and had also furnished a copy of the ledger account, and the Assessing Officer, after due verification of the same, had passed an assessment order, invocation of revisionary powers by the ld. PCIT was unjustified. 29. Evidently, it is not the case of the ld. PCIT, that the Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry while accepting the unsecured loans as genuine. His case, rather, is that deep rooted enquiries were required to be made, which had not been done by the Assessing Officer. The ld. PCIT is, thereby, trying to substitute the plausible view taken by the Assessing Officer with his own view. This course of action is not permissible under the revisionary provisions under section 263 Page 23 of 31 of the Act. The following decisions, amongst others, are authority for this proposition: Sr. No Judgement 1 Braham Dev Gupta VS Pre CIT (Del)187TTJ 1 2 CIT vs Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR (Del) 83 3 Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs. DCIT (E) ITAT Mumbai "F" Bench 209 TTJ (Mumbai) 409 4 CIT Vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR (Bom) 292 5 Reliance Money INF Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-183 TTJ (Mum)636 6 Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., Vs Pr. CIT- 184 TTJ(Del) 32 7 Colour Publications (P) Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT-196 TTJ (Mum)257 8 Aryan Arcade Ltd. Vs, Pr. CIT- 412 ITR (GUJ) 277 9 Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd., Vs CIT- 420 ITR (AII) 216 10 Khetawat Properties Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT-205 TTJ (Cal) 412 11 Yogesh Mavjibhai Gala Vs. Pr. CIT- 208 TTJ (Mum) 872 12 MOIL Ltd Vs. CIT- 396 ITR (Bom) 242 13 Yerram Venkata Subba Ready Vs. ACIT- 208 TTJ (Hyd) 885 14 CIT Vs Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd.- 341 ITR (Del) 180 15 Infosys Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT Asstt)-103 ITD (Bang) 399 30. In the following cases, amongst others, it has been held that insufficient enquiry by the Assessing Officer does not entitle invocation of revisional powers: 1. Kamal Kumar Gupta vs. cit, 142 TTJ Jaipur (UO) 9. 2. Nalco Company vs. cit, 210 TTJ (Pune) 369. Page 24 of 31 31. In ‘ CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma’, 335 ITR 83 (Delhi), the Tribunal found that complete details were filed before the Assessing Officer and that he had applied his mind to the relevant material and facts, although such application of mind was not discernible from the assessment order; that in the proceedings under section 263 of the Act, the CIT also had all these details and material available before him, but had not been able to point out the defects conclusively in the material, for arriving at a conclusion that a particular income had escaped assessment on account of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble High Court held that the case would not be one of lack of enquiry even if the enquiry was termed inadequate. 32. In ‘CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packaging Products and Camphor Works’ (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the law regarding the record which the CIT can examine. In the present case, however, there is no dispute in this regard. 33. In ‘Mannesmann Demag A.G. vs. DCIT’ (supra), the issue dealt with was setting up of a machinery known as internal audit. It was held that the opinion or information of the internal audit is not binding on the CIT and that the CIT has to apply his own mind to the facts of the case, taking into consideration the internal audit opinion. The case of the assessee, on the other hand, as discussed, is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Punjab & Harya High Court, in the case of ‘CIT vs. Sohana Woolen Mills’ (supra) and other decisions of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal. 34. In ‘Ambika Agro Suppliers vs. ITO, W-2(6), Jalgaon’ (supra), the Assessing Officer had not made any kind of enquiry or examination qua the issue. In the case of the assessee, however, it is not so. As discussed, herein, specific query was raised by the Assessing Officer which was replied to in detail by the assessee and the Assessing Officer, as noted in the assessment order, had examined all the Page 25 of 31 documents filed by the assessee and the Assessing Officer had accepted the same while framing the assessment order. 35. In ‘CIT vs. Active Traders (P) Ltd.’ (supra), again, no enquiry had been made by the Assessing Officer, whereas in the assessee’s case, it is not so. 36. In ‘Denial Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO’ (supra), the assessee’s appeal before the Hon'ble High Court was dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law arose. The SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the reason that the CIT had cancelled the assessment on the basis that the receipt of share application money had been accepted by the Assessing Officer without making any proper enquiry. Again, the facts are entirely different from those of the assessee’s case. 37. In the case of ‘Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT’ (supra), the Assessing Officer had accepted the share application money on the basis of the list of shareholders filed by the assessee along with PAN, whereas in the assessee’s case, the Assessing Officer, after enquiry, had accepted the documents filed by the assessee in support of the credits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on the ground that issuing of Rs.7.93 lakhs shares of Rs.10 each at a premium of Rs.390/- could be a case of money laundering by issuing shares on a high premium of Rs.32 crores. These are not the facts of the case before us, as discussed. 38. In ‘Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-3’ (supra), once again, it was a case of share capital raised at high premium, for which, the Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry and accepted the list of shareholders filed without analyzing it. The assessee’s case, as noted, is entirely different. 39. In ‘Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (Central), Rajasthan’ (supra), it was a case of accepting share capital at a high premium of Page 26 of 31 Rs.30/-, without proper enquiries having been made. It is not so in the case herein. 40. We summarise our conclusions as follows: 1) As available from the record, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had asked the Assessee to furnish evidence regarding the genuineness of the unsecured loans received by the Assessee during the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y. 2015-16. The AO specifically asked for the complete address and PANs of the Assessee’s creditors, as also for confirmed copies of their accounts. The Assessee was required to state as to whether its creditors were assessed to income tax or not, and to also explain as to why the unsecured loans had highly increased during the year. 2) The Assessee complied by filing complete evidence in the shape of : A) A detailed Chart of unsecured loans received during the year. B) Complete addresses of the loan creditors. C) PANs of the loan creditors. D) Copy of ledger account of the unsecured loan creditors duly confirmed by the creditors, depicting the receipt of the amount or any payment made in the account and the interest paid as also TDS made on the loans. E) Copies of ITRs of the creditors alongwith computation of income, also showing the interest received. Page 27 of 31 F) Copies of the creditors’ bank accounts containing the narration / entries of cheqeus issued to the Assessee/ RTGS, as well as the source of the source of the creditors. 3) The query raised by the AO was, thus, responded to by the Assessee. 4) On the basis of the voluminous documentary evidence so produced by the Assessee before the AO as well as before the PCIT, the genuineness of the loans and the creditworthiness of the loan creditors cannot be said to be not proved, particularly in the absence of any finding of the Ld. PCIT to such effect. 5) Just because the satisfaction of the AO to the response of the Assessee was not recorded in an elaborate manner in the assessment order, this was not reason good enough for the ld. PCIT to have ensconsed upon invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 in the absence of the twin perquisites of the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue having been established. 6) Mere brevity or terseness of the assessment order, by itself, did not entitle the powers under section 263 to be set in motion, eliciting the PCIT’s conclusion that no proper enquiry had been conducted by the AO. 7) The fact that the AO had raised queries and the Assessee had responded by filing all the requisite documentary evidence meant that the AO had passed the assessment order after making necessary enquiries, in keeping with ‘Chandan Magraj Parmar’ (supra), to which, no contrary decision has been cited. Page 28 of 31 8) It does not stand made out that the exercise of his quasi-judicial power by the AO was in violation or infringement of law. 9) Just because the PCIT did not feel satisfied with the conclusion arrived at by the AO, the assessment order could not be held to be erroneous. 10) This being so, even if the assessment order, in the opinion of the PCIT, is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, invocation of revisionary power is invalid, in the absence of concurrent existence of both the requirements of section 263. 11) There is no material whatsoever on record that legally leviable tax has remained form being imposed. 12) The Assessee has wrongly been subjected to the rigour of revisionary proceedings just because the assessment order has not been passed in an elaborate manner. Pithiness or wordiness of an assessment order cannot be determined by the revisionary authority, much less does it lie in the hands of the Assessee. 13) The queries put to the Assessee by the AO and the evidence filed by the Assessee before the AO in response thereto evince that the view taken by the AO was a plausible view. The PCIT has not, in the impugned order, shown it to be otherwise. Recourse to invocation of revisionary power has, therefore, wrongly been taken. 14) The identity of the Assessee’s creditors has not been questioned by the PCIT. 15) The factum of the credits having been routed through banking channels is not under challenge. Page 29 of 31 16) he creditors are all assessed to income tax independently. 17) The source as well as the source of the source of the credits, as available from the accounts of the creditors, furnished by the Assessee before the AO and also before the PCIT, has not been challenged. 18) Loans of 15 out of the total 29 loan creditors have undisputedly been accepted by the Department in the preceding years. 19) The interest paid on the loans by the Assessee has been assessed in the hands of the creditors and this fact, again, is not in dispute. 20) This payment of interest stands undisputedly allowed as expenditure incurred by the Assessee in the year under consideration, in the years past and also in the later years. 21) The Department has not been able to deny before us, the obtaining position, as above. 22) Though he said so in the impugned order, the PCIT did not state, either in the show cause notice, or in his order, the creditors from whom the alleged amount of Rs. 2 crores had been received by the Assessee. 23) The figure of Rs. 2 crores mentioned by the PCIT was, in fact, taken from the internal audit objection, as also had been queried about by the AO, which query had adequately been responded to by the Assessee, to the entire satisfaction of the AO, and the error in raising this figure as credits accepted by the Assessee was laid Page 30 of 31 bare before the PCIT, which, though, was wrongly not accepted by the PCIT. 24) The Department has remained unable to dispute that the figure of Rs. 2 crores is, in fact, the difference between the loan credits taken by the Assessee during the year, at Rs. 3,22,89,000/- and the amount of Rs. 1,13,03,863/-, representing loans repaid. The figure of Rs. 2 crores, therefore, is not the amount of unsecured loans accepted by the Assessee during the year under consideration. The Assessee’s explanation to this effect was simply ignored by the ld. PCIT. 25) CBDT Instruction No. 7/2017 dated 21.07.2017, stating that on acceptance of audit objection, it is incumbent upon the PCIT to take action under section 263 of the I.T. Act, has nto been accepted by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in ‘Sohana Woolen Mills’ (supra), which is binding on us, and which we, thus, respectfully follow. 26) The PCIT having not recorded any independent finding on considering the evidence filed by the Assessee not only before the AO, but also before the PCIT himself, the exercise of revisionary power was merely mechanical, just citing the audit objection, which was in direct opposition to ‘Rajinder Chauhan’ (supra), sought to be relied on by the Department itself. 27) The ld. PCIT having not applied his mind to the facts of the case, as gleanable from the evidence brought by the Assessee and elaborated by the Assessee, the opinion or information of the internal audit machinery, by itself, was not binding on the PCIT, as also held in Page 31 of 31 ‘Mannesmann Demag A.G.’ (supra) and the ld. PCIT went wrong in invoking revisionary power solely on the basis thereof. Evidently, the AO did enquire into the issue of unsecured loan credits accepted by the Assessee during the year under consideration, by examining the evidence furnished before him by the Assessee, and it was only thereafter, that the assessment order was passed, accepting the claim of the Assessee. 41. In the above view of the matter, the grievance of the Assessee is found to be justified and it is accepted as such. Looked at from any angel, the order under appeal is unsustainable in the eye of the law, and we hold so. The impugned order is, hence, reversed, whereas the assessment order is revived. 42. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/03/2023. Sd/- Sd/- [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:16/03/2023 JJ:/rkk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order Assistant Registrar