Shri Balkrishna Purshottamdas Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Dy, CIT, Circle - 11, Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

ITA 985/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4755 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-04-2020
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Earning of tax free income; Corroborative evidences; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BALKRISHNA PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL, S-56/57, BADAMI COAL COMPOUND, MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OPP. SBI, BAPUNAGAR, AHMEDABAD-380024 PAN: AAXPP3082C (APPELLANT) VS THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE 11, AHMEDABAD (PRESENT JURISDICTION WITH DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(3), AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SAKAR SHARMA, A.R . DATE OF HEARING : 07-09-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-10-2020 /ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11, ARISES FRO M ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AHMEDABAD-5, DATED 23-03-2016, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CON FIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 14,137/- U/S. 14A OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONF IRMING ADDITION OF RS. 22,85,528/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND U /S. 69 OF THE ACT IN SPITE OF AVAILABILITY OF EVIDENCE THAT SUCH INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY CO-OWNER AND NOT BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NO. 985/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 I.T.A NO. 985/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO BALKRISHNA PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL VS. DY. CIT 2 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONF IRMING ADDITION OF RS. 2,55,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT RETURN OF INCOME DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,25,230/- WAS FILED ON 5 TH OCTOBER, 2020. THE CASE WAS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FIN ALIZED ON 28 TH MARCH, 2013. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS PER THE ISSUES CONTESTED IN T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISCUSSED AS UNDER:- GROUND NO. 1 (ADDITION OF RS. 14,137/- U/S. 14A OF THE ACT ) 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING O FFICER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN EXEMPT INCOME AS DIVIDEND OF RS. 3,35,994 /- FROM INVESTMENT MADE IN SHARES AND SECURITIES AND CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENDIT URE OF RS. 10,28,811/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON EARNING EXEMPT INCOME U/S. 14A OF THE ACT, THEREFO RE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED EXPENDITURE TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 14,137/- ATTRIBUTABLE TOWARDS EARNING EXEMPT INCOME U/S. 14A AS PER RULE 8D OF I.T. RULE, 1962. 5. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT A SSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INCORRECTLY T AKEN EXEMPT INCOME AS RS. 3,35,994/- WHILE DISALLOWING RS. 14137/- U/S. 14A O F THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,35,994/- WAS REPRESENTED AS INVESTM ENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31-03-2010. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPRISING ANNUAL ACCOUNT SHOWING INVESTMENT OF RS. 4,12,451/- AND AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2009 AND INVESTMENT OF RS. 3,35,994/- AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2010. THE TOTAL I.T.A NO. 985/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO BALKRISHNA PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL VS. DY. CIT 3 EXEMPT INCOME OF DIVIDEND WAS SHOWN AT RS. 4,206/- ONLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY OTHER EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT NO EXPENDITURE INCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED TOWARDS EAR NING EXCEPT INCOME. WE OBSERVE THAT LOWER AUTHORITY HAS INCORRECTLY COMPUT ED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W.R. 8D OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, WE RESTRICT THE DI SALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 4,206/- EARNED BY THE ASSESS EE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 2 ( ADDITION OF RS. 22,85,528/- U/S. 69 OF THE ACT) 7. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING O FFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,08,85,128/- JOINTLY WITH SHRI. RASHMIKANT C. PATE L AND CHANDRIKABEN RASHMIKANT PATEL. THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROPERTY WAS OF 50% WHICH COMPUTED AT RS. 54 LACS. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE CO ULD ONLY EXPLAINED THE PAYMENT OF RS. 10 LACS MADE ON 27 TH OCTOBER, 2009. THEREFORE, THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 44 LACS WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN VESTMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. 9. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 3.10.1. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS , THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT HE HAS ACQUIRED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,08,85,528/- VIDE PURCHASE DEED DTD. 29.10.2009. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PURCHASE DEED THE APPELLANT HAS 50% SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY AND REMAINING 50% SHARE IS EQUALLY SH ARED BY REMAINING TWO INDIVIDUALS. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT OUT OF THE TOT AL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,08,85,528/- AN AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS WAS PAID DIRECTLY BY THE APPELLANT A ND BALANCE OF RS.98,85,528/- HAS BEEN PAID BY THE REMAINING TWO CO-OWNERS FROM THEIR BANK ACCOUNT S. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT PAID RS. 24 LAKHS BY CHEQUE NO.85652 DTD. 7.10.2008 DRAWN ON SRI, BAPUNAGAR BRANCH TO ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS SHRIRASHMIKANT C. PATEL WHO IN TURN MADE PAYMENT TO THE LAND OWNER FROM HIS I.T.A NO. 985/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO BALKRISHNA PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL VS. DY. CIT 4 BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT OUT OF TOTAL CONSIDERATION AN AMOUNT OF RS.34 LAKHS HAS BEEN BORN BY THE APPELLANT AND WHICH WAS EXPLAINED TO THE AO. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE NOT ONLY THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLA INED THE SOURCED OF INVESTMENT BUT HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM INCLUDING SOUR CE THEREOF WHICH IS ALSO RECORDED IN THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : - DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS 26 ITR 775 (SC) NATU RAM PREMCHANDVS.CIT 49 ITR 561 (ALL) KAMDHENU STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. 206 TAXMAN 254 (DELHI HC) AUDOBINDO SANITARY STORES VS. CIT 276 ITR 549 (ORI) THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT OUT OF TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 1,08,85,528/-, AN AMOUNT OF RS.76 LAKHS WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS AND AMOUNT OF RS.32,82,5287- WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR. OUT OF WHICH RS.22,85,528/- WERE INVESTED BY SHRI R TTSHMIKANT C. PATEL TO WHOM APPELLANT HAD ADVANCED A SUM OF RS.24 LAKHS IN EARLIER YEARS. 3.10.2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMISSIONS OF THE A PPELLANT AND REMAND REPORTS FROM THE A.O. ARE CONSIDERED. THE APPELLANT HAS MAINLY CONTENDED T HAT SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IS EXPLAINED AND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT IS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT OUT OF TOTAL INVESTMENT AN AMOUNT OF RS.76 LAKHS WAS MADE IN E ARLIER YEARS AND REPRESENTING OPENING INVESTMENT , THEREFO RE, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OR INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS CONSIDERED INVESTMENT OF RS. 10 LAKHS AS EXPLAINED AND MADE ADDITION OF BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.44 LAKHS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THAT INCOME. FR OM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SAID RS.24 LAKSH TO T HE OTHER CO-OWNER SHRI RASHMIKANT C. PATEL IN EARLIER YEAR AND PAID RS.IO LAKHS TO THE SELLER DUR ING THE YEAR. IT IS FURTHER FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR ONLY INVESTMENT WAS MADE OF ?N AMOUNT OF R S.32,85,528/-. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT OUT OF THIS RS.22,85,528/- WERE INVE STED BY SHRI RASHMIKANT C. PATEL TO WHOM APPELLANT HAD ADVANCED A SUM OF RS.24 LAKHS IN EARL IER YEAR CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED THE AMOUNT OF RS.24 LAKHS IN EARLIER Y EARS AND NOT DURING THE YEAR. THEREFORE, THE ASSERSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVEST MENT OF RS.22,85,528/- MADE DURING THE YEAR BY THE APPELLANT, HENCE ADDITION OF RS.22,85,528/- IS CONFIRMED AND BALANCE IS DELETED. THUS, THE GROUND NO.3 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY AT AN AMOUNT RS. 1,08,85,528/- JOINTLY WITH SH. RASHMIKANT C. PATEL AND SMT. CHANDRIKABEN RASHIKANT PATEL. THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROPERTY WAS 50% AND ACCORDI NGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE SHARE OF INVESTMENT TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 54 LACS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTA NTIATE WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 54 LACS MADE IN THE SAID IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE COULD ONLY EXPLAIN THE PAY MENT OF RS. 10 LACS MADE ON 27 TH OCTOBER, 2009. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED RS. 44 LACS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), I.T.A NO. 985/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO BALKRISHNA PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL VS. DY. CIT 5 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD PAID RS. 24 LACS B Y CHEQUE DATED 7 TH OCTOBER, 2008 TO ONE OF THE CO-OWNER SHRI RASHMIKANT C. PATE L WHO HAD MADE FURTHER PAYMENT TO THE LAND OWNER FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT. T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 1,08, 85,528/- PAYMENT OF RS. 76 LACS WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 32,82,528/- WAS ONLY PAID DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFOR E, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT RS. 76 LACS WAS OPENING INVESTMENT MADE IN THE EARLIER Y EARS WHICH CANNOT BE ADDED U/S.69 OF THE ACT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE H AD TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE PART INVESTMENT MADE OUT OF RS. 76 LACS IN THE EARLIER Y EARS WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION, THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS. 10 LACS OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PAYMENT OF RS. 32,82,528/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE CONSIDER NO ERROR IN THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO THE EX TENT OF RS. 22,85,528/- SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF T HIS INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 3 (ADDITION OF RS. 2,55,500/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT) 11. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,24,13,254/- A S UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF UNSECURED LO AN ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID TRAN SACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT TILL THE PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR THEREFORE HE HAD T REATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,24,13,254/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. I.T.A NO. 985/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO BALKRISHNA PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL VS. DY. CIT 6 12. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 2,55,500/-. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- 3.11.2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND REMAND REPORTS FROM THE A.O ARE CONSIDERED. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE APP ELLANT, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT OUT OF TOTAL DEPOSITS OF RS.2,24,13,254/-, AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,14, 28,772/-REPRESENTS OPENING BALANCES. THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM ON THE G ROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY SUCH DETAILS LIKE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THESE UNSECURED LOANS, COPY OF AUDIT REPORTS OR ABSTRACTS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PERTAINING TO PREVIOUS YEAR INDICA TING THESE TRANSACTIONS HAVING TAKEN PLACE. THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AND BOTH COPY OF ACCOUNT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS CONTRA ACCOUNTS OF CRED ITORS. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAS STATED THAT LETTERS U/S. L 33(6) OF THE ACT SENT TO ALL THE CREDITORS RETURNED UNSERVED WHICH SHOWS THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE. IN THIS REGA RD THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED, THAT MOST OF THESE LETTERS WERE ISSUED BY THE A.O. ON THE DATE OF PAS SING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR THEREAFTER THEREFORE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE TAKEN AN ADVERSE VIEW I N RESPECT OF THESE CASH CREDITS. A PERUSAL OF REMAND REPORT SHOWS THAT MOST OF THESE LETTERS WE RE ISSUED EITHER ON 29.03,2013 OR 30.03.2013 WEREAS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED EN 28.0 3.2003. ACCORDING TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, ANY SUM FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR MAY CHARGE TO INCOME-TAX AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF T HAT PREVIOUS YEAR IF- (I) THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT T HE NATURE OF SOURCE OF SUCH SUM, OR (II) THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS, IN THE OPINION OF THE AO NOT SATISFACTORY. HERE IN THE INSTANT CASE CREDITS OF RS.2,14,28,772/ - WERE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS. IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN O NLY OPENING BALANCE OF THESE CREDITS. THESE CREDIT ENTRIES DID NOT RELATE TO THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION FOR BEING CONSIDERED U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THE AO COULD HAVE ENQUIRED THE GENUINENESS OF THE C REDITS IN THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE TOOK THEM AND COULD HAVE MADE ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE ACT IN THAT YEAR IF NOT FOUND GENUINE. CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION AND THE D ECISIONS CITED BY THE APPELLANT, THE ADDITION OF RS.2,14,28,772/- WHICH REPRESENTS OPENI NG BALANCES IS DELETED. 3.11.3 WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.9,34,570/ WHIC H REPRESENTS INTEREST CREDITED ON OLD LOANS DURING THE YEAR THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THA T A SEPARATE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE INTEREST CREDITED DURING THE YEAR AND THIS ADDITION AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION IS ACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS.9,34,570/- IS ALSO DELETE D. 3.11.4 THE ADDITION 01 BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.2,55,50 0/- WHICH REPRESENTS NEW DEPOSITS DURING THE YEAR, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPT ABLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, HENCE THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 13. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 2,24,13,254/- STATI NG THAT ON THE DATE OF PASSING ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AND INFORMATION TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION. DUR ING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DETAILS THAT UNSECURED LOAN AMOUNT OF RS . 2,14,28,772/- PERTAINED TO OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01-04-2009 WHICH CANNOT BE A DDED U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. I.T.A NO. 985/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO BALKRISHNA PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL VS. DY. CIT 7 AFTER NECESSARY VERIFICATION AND CONSIDERING THE RE MAND REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE OPENING BA LANCE OF RS. 2,14,28,772/- WHICH WAS INCORRECTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF LOAN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,55,500/- OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FURNISHED BY THE A SSESSEE COMPRISING COPIES OF CONFIRMATION LETTER, IDENTITY OF THE LENDER, LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITORS PLACED AT PAGES 50 TO 99 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY VERIFICATION AND INQUIRY TO DISPROVE THE CORREC TNESS OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALS O NOT GIVEN ANY REASONS AND FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF HIS DECISION TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF LOAN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,55,500/- OBTAINED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION. WE CONSIDER THAT THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED , THERE FORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07-10-2020 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 07/10/2020 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. I.T.A NO. 985/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO BALKRISHNA PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL VS. DY. CIT 8 BY ORDER/ , / ,