ITO, WD-35(2), KOLKATA, Kolkata V. Smt Jyoti Saraf, Kolkata

ITA 985/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6502 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C J SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBASH AGARWAL PER A T VA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rejection of books of accounts; Income from undisclosed sources; Source of fund; Onus to prove; Bogus loan
• Section: 133(6); 131; 68

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH D: KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI A.L.SAINI, AM I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] ITO, WARD-35(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, KOLKATA-700107. VS. SMT. JYOTI SARAF, 1, OLD COURT HOUSE CORNER, R.NO.519, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700001. PAN-AABCO5420A APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 24.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.01.2019 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI C.J.SINGH, ADDL. CIT SR.DR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE PER A.T.VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-10, KOLKATA DATED 08.02.2016 FOR AY 2008-09. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO NOTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN OF RS.1,38,23,606/- FROM 74 LOAN CREDITORS, SO IN ORDE R TO VERIFY THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS & GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CREDITOR S FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS THE LOAN TAKEN, HE ISSUED SUMMONS TO 36 PERSONS OF WHOM AO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT 11 PERSONS APPEARED BEFORE HIM (WHEREAS AT PAGE 31 OF ASSESSME NT ORDER, THE AO RECORDED THAT 16 PERSONS STATEMENTS WAS RECORDED). HOWEVER, HE WAS N OT CONVINCED ABOUT THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINEITY OF THE TRANSACTION, SO HE ADDED THE ENTIRE LOAN AMOUNT OF I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 2 RS.1,38,23,606/-. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO WAS PLEASED TO DELETE THE SAME. AGGRIEVED, THE REV ENUE IS BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORD. ASSAILING THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. DR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE A SSESSMENT ORDER AND CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD RAISED HUGE LOAN FROM PERSONS (74 NUMB ERS) WHO DID NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO PROVIDE LOAN TO ASSESSEE AND THE AO HAS DEALT WITH THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS NOT CONVINCED BY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOA N, SINCE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSE E. SO AO MADE THE ADDITION. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO LD. DR, THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE AF FIDAVIT OF 74 CREDITORS AND GAVE RELIEF TO ASSESSEE WHICH IS ERRONEOUS AND HE WANTS US TO R EVERSE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND UPHOLD AOS ORDER. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RE QUIREMENT TO INVEST IN THE CLOSELY HELD GROUP COMPANIES IN WHICH SHE WAS A DIRECTOR AN D FOR THAT SHE TOOK LOANS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. WE NOTE THAT SOME OF THE LO ANS WERE BEARING INTEREST AND BALANCE NON-INTEREST BEARING AS IS APPARENT FROM PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS OF LOAN CREDITORS PLACED AT PAGE 36 TO 38 OF PAPER BOOK. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE SAID LIST, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOANS WERE FROM 74 INDIVIDUALS IN SMALL A MOUNTS RANGING FROM RS.25,000/- TO RS.6 LACS. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE AO HAS DEALT W ITH THE ISSUE FROM PARA 7 ONWARDS AND IT IS SEEN THAT HE HAD ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 131 TO SO ME OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. HE HAS TABULATED THE OUTCOME OF SUMMONS IN A TABULAR FORMA T FROM PAGE 3 TO PAGE 7. THUS, IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE TABLE THAT SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO 36 PERSONS OUT OF WHICH 11 PERSONS APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O. AND GAVE THEIR VOL UNTARY DEPOSITION, THE OTHERS HAD FILED THEIR REPLIES BY POST EXCEPT ONE. THOUGH 35 OUT OF 36 PERSONS RESPONDED TO SEC. 131 SUMMON OF THE AO, HE DOUBTED THE SOURCE, CREDITWORT HINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. AND THEN PROCEEDED TO ADD BACK THE ENTIRE LOAN TAKEN AM OUNTING TO RS.1,38,23,606/-. 4. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT AT THE FAG EN D WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED THAT IS IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2010 T HE AO HAS SUMMONED U/S 131 FEW LOAN CREDITORS (36 NUMBERS) OUT OF WHICH 11 CREDITO RS APPEARED AND 25 REPLIED EXCEPT ONE. WE NOTE THAT AO HAD RECORDED DEPOSITIONS OF 11 CREDITORS WHO APPEARED BEFORE HIM. IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO 5 OF THE DEPOSITIONS ALL TH E LOAN CREDITORS HAD ADMITTED THAT THEY HAD GIVEN THE LOAN TO ASSESSEE. FURTHER, FROM THE E NCLOSED STATEMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 3 ORDER FROM PAGES 3 TO 7, THE AO HAS CITED THE GIST OF THE STATEMENT OF 35 LOAN CREDITORS PARTLY TAKEN OUT OF DEPOSITIONS AND PARTLY FROM THE REPLY OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. WE NOTE THAT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOAN CREDITORS IS 74 (SEVE NTY FOUR) AMOUNTING TO RS 1,38,23,606/- WHEREIN 16 (SIXTEEN) LOAN CREDITORS ARE OLD LOAN CREDITORS FROM WHOM ASSESSEE RECEIVED LOAN TO THE TUNE OF RS.27,62,000/ -. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, SHE TOOK THIS LOAN OF RS1,38,23,606/- FOR THE REPAYMENT OF THE EA RLIER LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.1,37,78,776/-. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE D ISCREPANCY IN THE NUMBER OF CREDITORS APPEARING BEFORE THE AO AS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AO. IN ONE PLACE, THE AO HAS CITED ONLY ELEVEN NUMBERS NAME AND THEIR DEPOSITIONS WHE REAS HE HAS PUT 16(SIXTEEN) NUMBER OF LOAN CREDITORS HAVING APPEARED BEFORE HIM (REFER PAGE NO 31 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER.). IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TH AT THE AO IGNORED THE AFFIDAVIT AND DID NOT GIVE ANY CREDENCE TO INCOME TAX RETURN, BALANCE SHEET, CONFIRMATION OF LOAN, BANK STATEMENT FILED OF EACH INDIVIDUAL LOAN LENDERS AND ORDERED ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE LOAN AMOUNT. WE NOTE THAT THOUGH THERE WAS 74 LOAN CRED ITORS, THE AO ISSUED THE SUMMONS TO ONLY 36 CREDITORS OUT OF WHICH AS PER AO, ELEVEN CR EDITORS (PARA 16 AT PAGE 31 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER) APPEARED AND THEIR DEPOSITIONS WE RE RECORDED BY THE AO AND IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, OUT OF 36 LOAN CREDITORS, 24 CREDITORS DULY REPLIED TO THE AO WHEREIN THEY ACKNOWLEDGED GIVING LOAN TO ASSESSEE. 5) WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO P RESENT ON 15.12.2010 EIGHT LOAN CREDITORS THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THEM BEFORE THE AO AND THEY PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THEIR IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION WITH ASSESSEE. I) IN ORDER TO PROVE THEIR IDENTITY THEY PRESENTED THEMSELVES BEFORE THE AO AND HAVE SUBMITTED THE KYC DOCUMENTS. II) THE EVIDENCE FOR SOURCE OF TRANSACTION COULD BE SEEN FROM THE BANK STATEMENT, BALANCE SHEET AND ALL OF THEM WERE INCOME TAX ASSES SEES AND HAVE PRODUCED THEIR RESPECTIVE INCOME TAX RETURN AND ACKNOWLEDGEM ENT. III) SOURCE OF FUND COULD BE SEEN FROM PERUSAL OF T HE BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THEIR INCOME TAX RETURN. I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 4 6. IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE LOAN TRANSACTION TH E ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW: I). 74 (SEVENTY FOUR) LOAN CREDITORS HAVE FILED THE IR RESPECTIVE AFFIDAVITS ALONG WITH INCOME TAX ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT, BANK STATE MENT, BALANCE SHEET & LOAN CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. II). SUMMARY OF LOAN REPAID TILL THE DATE YEAR WISE AGAINST THE TOTAL LOAN TAKEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHERE RS.70,88, 606/- HAS ALREADY BEEN REPAID OUT OF RS.1,38,23, 606/- WHICH CONSTITUTES 5 1.28 % OF THE LOAN TAKEN. 7. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL (JODHPUR) WHEREIN WHEN THE FACT WAS THAT THE CASH CREDITORS ARE INCOM E TAX ASSESSEE, HAVING BANK ACCOUNTS, AND PRODUCED BALANCE SHEET AND AFFIDAVIT ETC. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT CASH CREDIT WAS DULY EXPLAINED AND DELETED THE ADDITION IN JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION CO. V. ITO [2004] 82 TTJ (JD.) (TRIB.) 13, THE TRIBUNAL OBSERV ED AS UNDER: SOME OF THE CREDITORS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O . WHILE AFFIDAVITS OF SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN PRODUCED, BALANCE SHEET OF SOME OF THE CREDITO RS WERE ALSO PRODUCED WHEREIN THE TRANSACTION WERE ENTERED INTO. SOME OF THE CREDITOR S HAVE FILED CONFIRMATIONS. CASH CREDITORS BEING INCOME TAX ASSESSEE WHO ALSO HAD BA NK ACCOUNTS, THE FINDING OF THE A.O. THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT CREDITWORTHY WAS NOT JU STIFIED. THE EXAMINATION BY THE A.O OF SOME OF THE CREDITORS HAVE NOT REVEALED ANY FINDING ADVERSE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WHEN THE CASH CREDITS STAND EXPLAINED, NO ADDITION, INCLUDING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST THEREON, WAS JUSTIFIED. PRESUMING THAT CA SH CREDITS ARE UNEXPLAINED, THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING SET OFF OF INTANGIBLE ADD ITIONS AGAINST ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS- ASSTT. CIT V INDIA TYRE H OUSE [2001] 72 TTJ (GAU.) 316, CIT V. HEERALAL CHAGANLAL TANK [2002] 257 ITR 281(RAJ.):[2 002] 176 CTR(RAJ.) 495,SHIVAM SYNTHETICS (P) LTD V. ASSTT.CIT [2002] 76 TTJ(JD), ROHINI BUILDERS V DY. CIT[2002] 76 TTJ(AHD) 521, R.DALMIA THROUGH L.R. V. CIT [2002] 1 72 CTR (DEL.) 180 AND B & BROTHERS ENGG. WORKS V DY.CIT [2003] 78 TTJ (AHD.) (FM) 876 RELIED ON. 8. THEREFORE, THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT UNDER THE A FORESAID FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS THE ADDITION BY THE AO WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE FROM OUR PA RT. 9. (A) BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS (REPRODUCED AT PAGES 4 & 5 OF HIS ORDER)- GROUND NO 1 (ADDITION OF LOAN TAKEN DURING THE YEA R OF RS.L,38,23,606/- BY THE LD INCOME TAX OFFICE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAID LOAN WAS TO REPAY THE OLD LOAN OF RS.1,37,78,776/-.) I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 5 IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 143(2) & 14 2(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 DATED 15.09.2009 AND 26.04.2010 RESPECTIVELY WRITTEN SUBM ISSION DATED 07.05.2010 SUBMITTED ON 15.06.2010 & SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSION DATED 13.07.2 010 AND 31.08.2010 WERE SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (COPY ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS 'A', 'B' & 'C') .IN REPLY TO OUR SUBMISSION A LETTER DATED 2ND SEPTEMBE R 2010 WAS RECEIVED FROM THE LD INCOME TAX OFFICER. THE SAME WAS EXPLAINED BY THE W RITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 15.09.2010. (COPY ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS 'D'). AS THE CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER CASS ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION FOR SHARE TRANSACTION AND CASH DEPO SIT WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF SAME WERE SUBMITTED ON 19.09.2010, 06.12.2010 AND 1 4.12.2010 (COPY ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS 'E', 'F', 'G' RESPECTIVELY). IN THE FLAG MONTH OF THE ASSESSMENT THAT IS IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2010 THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS SUMMONED U/S. 131 FEW LOAN CREDITOR S WHO WERE APPEARED BEFORE-THE LD INCOME TAX OFFICER AND HE HAD RECORDED THEIR DEPOSI TIONS. IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO 5 OF THE DEPOSITIONS ALL THE LOAN CREDITORS HAD ADMITTED THA T THEY HAD GIVEN LOAN TO YOUR APPELLANT. FURTHER FROM THE ENCLOSED STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER FROM PAGE 3 TO 7 THE LD INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS CITED THE STATEMENT OF 36 LO AN CREDITORS PARTLY TAKEN OUT ON DEPOSITIONS AND PARTLY ON THE REPLY OF THE LOAN CRE DITORS. WHEN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOAN CREDITORS IS 74 (SEVENTY FOUR) AMOUNTING TO RS.L,38 ,23,606/- WHERE 16 (SIXTEEN) LOAN PARTIES ARE OLD LOAN CREDITOR AND WHERE EARLIER LOA NS ARE ALSO EXISTING AND WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEARS WITH NO DISPUTE. THE TOTAL LOAN TAKEN FROM THE EXISTING OLD LOAN CREDITORS WAS RS.27,62,000/-. THE ABOVE LOAN O F RS.1,38,23,606/- HAD BEEN TAKEN FOR THE REPAYMENT OF THE EARLIER LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.1 ,37,78,776/- (REFER DETAILS ENCLOSED WITH OUR REPLY DATED 31.08.2010 MARKED AS 'C'. FURT HER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CITED COPIES OF ONLY ELEVEN NUMBER OF DEPOSITION OF LOAN CREDITORS WHERE AS HE HAS PUT 16 (SIXTEEN) NUMBER OF LOAN CREDITORS UNDER DEPOSITION (REFER PAGE NO 31 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER).IN SPITE OF THAT HE HAS ADDED THE ENTIRE LOA N TAKEN DURING THE YEAR WHEN THE SAME WERE NOT DISPUTED BY THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER. FU RTHERMORE IN THE SHOW CAUSE RECORDED ON 15.12.2010 THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER H AS ASKED THE A/R TO PRESENT FURTHER B (EIGHT) NUMBER OF LOAN CREDITORS WHICH WAS DULY COM PLIED WITH REFER OUR LETTER DATED 20.12.2010 (COPY ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS 'H') YOUR A PPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE ADDED THE LOAN W HEN THE LOAN CREDITORS HAD PROVED:- 1) THEIR IDENTITY BY PRESENTING THEMSELVES IN PERSON A ND HAVE SUBMITTED THE KYC DOCUMENTS. 2) WHEN THE SOURCE OF TRANSACTION HAVE BEEN PROVED BY PRODUCING BANK STATEMENT, BALANCE SHEET AND ALL OF THEM ARE INCOME TAX ASSESS EE AND HAVE PRODUCED THEIR INCOME TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. 3) SOURCE OF FUND AVAILABLE TO THEM AS SHOWN IN THE BA LANCE SHEET FILED BY THEM ALONG WITH THEIR INCOME TAX RETURN. IN SUPPORT WE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING:- 1. WE SUBMIT HEREWITH THE DOCUMENTS OF 74 (SEVENTY FOUR) LOAN CREDITORS TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS.1,38,23,606/-SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDA VIT FROM EACH LOAN CREDITORS ALONG WITH INCOME TAX ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT, BANK STATE MENT, BALANCE SHEET & LOAN CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. (COPIES ENCLOSE D AND MARKED AS 'I') 2. WE ALSO SUBMIT HEREWITH A SUMMARY OF LOAN REPAID TILL THE DATE YEAR WISE AGAINST THE TOTAL LOAN TAKEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-09 ,WHERE RS.70,88,606/- HAS ALREADY I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 6 BEEN REPAID OUT OF RS.1,38,23,606/- WHICH CONSTITUT ES 51.2B % OF THE LOAN TAKEN. (COPIES ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS 'J') WHEN CASH CREDITORS ARE INCOME TAX ASSESSEE, HAVING BANK ACCOUNTS, AND PRODUCED BALANCE SHEET AND AFFIDAVIT ETC.: IN JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION CO. V. ITO [2004] 82 TTJ ( JD.) (TRIB.) 13, SOME OF THE CREDITORS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. WHILE AFFID AVITS OF SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN PRODUCED, BALANCE SHEET OF SOME OF THE CREDITORS WE RE ALSO PRODUCED WHEREIN THE TRANSACTION WERE ENTERED INTO. SOME OF THE CREDITOR S HAVE FILED CONFIRMATIONS. CASH CREDITORS BEING INCOME TAX ASSESSEE WHO ALSO HAD BA NK ACCOUNTS, THE FINDING OF THE A.O. THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT CREDITWORTHY WAS NOT JU STIFIED. THE EXAMINATION BY THE A.0 OF SOME OF THE CREDITORS HAVE NOT REVEALED ANY FINDING ADVERSE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WHEN THE CASH CREDITS STAND EXPLAINED, NO ADD ITION, INCLUDING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST THEREON, WAS JUSTIFIED. PRESUMING THAT CASH CREDITS ARE UNEXPLAINED, THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING SET OFF OF INTANGIBLE ADDITIONS AGAINST ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS- ASSTT.CIT V INDIA TYRE HO USE [2001] 72 TTJ (GAU.)316, CIT V. HEERALAL CHAGANLAL TANK [2002] 257 ITR 281 (RAJ): [ 2002] 176 CTR (RAJ.) 495, SHIVAM SYNTHETICS (P) LTD. V. ASSTT. CIT [2002] 76 TTJ (JD ); ROHINI BUILDERS V DY. CIT [2002] 76 TTJ (AHD.) 521, R. DALMIA THROUGH L.R. V. CIT [2002 ) 172 CTR (DEL.) 180 AND B & BROTHERS ENGG. WORKS V DY. CIT [2003] 78 TTJ (AHD.) (TM) 876 RELIED ON. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION BY THE LD INCO ME TAX OFFICER MAY KINDLY BE DELETED'. WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND R EPORT FROM A.O. WHO SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT DATED 17.04.2014 AND JUSTIFIED THE AD DITIONS MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT. WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) NARRATED THE SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. AND THE RESULTANT CONCLUSIONS AT PAGE 7 OF HIS ORDER AS UND ER- (I). IN A NUMBER OF CASES THERE WERE DEPOSITS IN CA SH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF CREDITORS ON THE SAME DAY OR A FEW DAY OR A FEW DAY S BEFORE THE CLEARANCE OF CHEQUE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE AMOUNT RE CEIVED AND CLAIMED AS LOAN FROM THE CREDITORS BY THE ASSESSEE. (II). IN A NUMBER OF CASES THE AMOUNT CLAIMED AS LO AN HAS BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH PAY ORDER PURCHASED IN CASH FROM THE KARUR VYSYA BA NK LTD. (III). ON PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET OF LOAN CREDITOR S IT WAS OBSERVED FROM THEIR CAPITAL THAT THEY HAD NO MEANS TO ADVANCE INTEREST- FREE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. (IV). MOST OF THE LOAN CREDITORS HAVE CLAIMED EITHE R INCOME BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT OR INCOME JUST ABOVE TAXABLE LIMIT IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME FILED. IT SUGGESTS THAT THEY HAD NO MEANS TO ADVANCE INTEREST-FREE LOAN TO THE A SSESSEE. I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 7 (V). MOST OF THE LOAN CREDITORS HAD A VERY LOW PERS ONAL DRAWINGS (ABOUT RS. 20,000/-). IT SUGGESTS THAT THEY HAD NO MEANS TO AD VANCE INTEREST-FREE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. (VI). IT IS UNACCEPTABLE THAT LOAN CREDITORS WITH L OW INCOME AND LOW PERSONAL DRAWINGS WOULD ADVANCE INTEREST-FREE LOAN TO A LADY WHO IS NOT CLOSELY RELATED FAMILY MEMBER. (VII). THE RETURNS OF INCOME OF LOAN CREDITORS WERE NOT UNDER SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR THE A. Y. 2008-09 (RELEVANT TO F. Y. 2007-08) W HEN THE ALLEGED LOAN HAS BEEN CLAIMED. IN OTHER WORDS INCOME AND MONETARY AFFAIRS STATED IN RETURN OF INCOME OF LOAN CREDITORS FOR THE A. Y. 2008-09 (RELEVANT TO F . Y. 2007-08) WERE NOT VERIFIED AND EXAMINED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. (VIII). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, THE GENUINEN ESS OF LOAN TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF LOAN CREDITORS WAS NOT PROVED B EYOND DOUBT AND THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE A CCEPTED AS SATISFACTORY. ACCORDINGLY, THERE WAS CORRECT FINDING IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER THAT THE AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN CLAIMED FOR THE SUM OF RS .1,38,23,606/- WAS FROM BOGUS LOAN CREDITORS AND THE SAME WAS CORRECTLY ADD ED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOU RCE OF INCOME. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER VIDE PARA 3 OF HI S ORDER- 'I HAVE EXAMINED THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVATIONS WITH CONCLUSION VIS-A-VIS THE APPELLANT'S OBSERVATIONS WITH CONCLUSIONS. IT IS NO TICED THAT IN THE CASE OF ALL THE 74 LOAN CREDITORS, THE NOTICES U/S 133(6) WERE SERV ED AND REPLIES TO THE SAME IN RESPONSE WERE WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . IN THESE REPLIES THE LOAN CREDITORS HAVE CONFIRMED THE FACTS OF LOANS HAVING BEEN GIVEN, AND HAVE SUPPORTED THE SAME BY OFFERING CASH FLOW STATEMENTS . ON PERUSAL OF THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THAT CONTEXT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT AMOUNTS ADVANCED ARE NOT VERY LARGE, AND IN MOST OF THE CAS ES THE AMOUNT ARE RANGING FROM RS.15,000/- TO RS.3,00,000/-. IT IS ALSO OBSER VED THAT LOAN CREDITORS ARE INCOME TAX ASSESSEE HOLDING PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBE R AND HAVE BEEN COMPLIANT IN SUBMITTING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS BEF ORE THE AO SUCH AS THE COPIES OF THE THEIR INCOME TAX RETURN AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT ALONG WITH COPY OF BANK STATEMENT, LOAN CONFIRMATION, COPY OF BALANCE SHEET, INCOME TAX RETURN RECEIPT. SEVERAL OF THEM HAVE ALSO SUBMITTED AFFIDA VITS WITH STATEMENT ON OATH IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. IN THE SAID SITUATION, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DULY DISCH ARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS CAST UPON HER BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW. IN MY CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DULY DISCHARGED THE INITIAL BURDEN OF PROOF PLA CED UPON HER. THUS I FIND THAT IN AN ADMITTED POSITION, WHEN ALL THE LOAN CREDITOR S HAVE AFFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE ADVANCED MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THEIR RESPECTIV E BANK ACCOUNTS AND ARE INCOME TAX ASSESSEE WITH PAN, THE GENUINENESS AND C REDITWORTHINESS STOOD I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 8 PROVED, AND IN SUCH A SITUATION WERE THERE DOUBTS S TILL PERSISTING WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE COULD HAVE SENT THE INFORMATI ON TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ASSESSING THE CREDITORS FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION IN T HEIR CASES. HOWEVER, IN SO FAR AS THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED, IT IS TO BE OBSERVED FROM THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL MATRIX, THAT SHE HAD DULY DISCHARGED THE BURDEN WHI CH LAY UPON HER. I FIND THAT DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LOAN CR EDITORS, IN A FEW CASES, AND TRANSFER THROUGH CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER DOES CAST DOUBTS ABOUT THE GENUINENESS, AND DOES RAISE S OME SUSPICION ABOUT THE SAID TRANSACTIONS. HOWEVER, SUSPICION HOWSOEVER STRONG I T MAY BE, AND SUGGESTED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR ASS ESSMENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS DIRECT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. ON PERUSAL OF T HE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED ARE NOT SUBSTANT IAL WHEN THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED THE BURDEN SO PLACED ON HER THE ONUS THE REAFTER SHIFTS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSES THE SAID LOAN AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, THEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS TO BRING THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, EITHER BY DIRECT EVIDENCE OR INDIRECT/CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT M ONEY WHICH THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FROM THE CREDITOR ACTUALLY BELONG TO AND W AS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE HERSELF/ HIMSELF'. (D) THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO TOOK NOTE OF THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 WHICH WERE ALSO ON SIMILA R FACTS WHEREIN THE ADDITION WAS ORDERED TO BE DELETED THE TO THE TUNE OF RS.21, 45,000/-. 10. WE NOTE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF DEPOSITIO NS REPRODUCED BY THE A.O. AND THE DOCUMENTS FILED LIKE AFFIDAVIT, BANK STATEMENT, BAL ANCE SHEET, INCOME TAX RETURN, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, PAN DETAILS OF LOAN CREDITORS AND LOAN CONFIRMATION, FINAL ACCOUNTS, WHICH DOCUMENTS ARE IN THE FILE OF DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED THE ONUS ON HER TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUNITY O F THE LENDERS. WE NOTE THAT ALL OF THE LOAN LENDERS HAVE ADMITTED ON OATH IN THEIR RESPECT IVE AFFIDAVITS THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. (I) IN MOST OF THE CASES, THE LOAN AMOUNT ADVANCED BY T HE LOAN CREDITORS IS EITHER A FRACTION OF THEIR NET WORTH OR COMMENSURAT E WITH THEIR ANNUAL INCOME. (II) IN THE CASE OF SMT. GOMATI DEVI SARAF (AT SI NO 15) , THE A.O. HAS OBSERVED THAT HER INCOME IS RS. 1,47,2501- WHEREAS LOAN ADVA NCED WAS AMOUNTING TO RS. 5 LAKHS. THE A.O. HAS ABSTAINED FROM GIVING A F INDING AS TO THE NET WORTH OF THE SAID ASSESSEE AT SL. NO. 15 OF THE ANN EXURE TO THE REMAND REPORT. HOWEVER, FROM THE BALANCE SHEET ON THE RECO RD OF THE A.O. , IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE SAID LOAN CREDITOR HAS A NET WORTH OF RS. 37,00,809/-. I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 9 (III) IN CERTAIN CASES, THOUGH NO ANALYSIS OF NET WORTH / INCOME HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O., THE SAID PARTIES HAVE FILED THEIR CONFIRM ATION WITH PAN NO. / REPLIES U/S 133(6) WITH THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME AND PAN NO. (SUCH CASES ARE AT SI.NO. 24,27,31,37,40,47,60,65,6 7,72) (G) IN THE REMAND REPORT AT PARA 4.3, THE A.O. HAS GIVEN HIS REPORT WHICH ARE NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ARE DEALT WITH AS UNDER- A. THE ISSUE OF ISSUANCE OF CHEQUE TOWARDS LOAN ON THE SAME DAY OF DEPOSIT OF MONEY THOUGH EVOKES SUSPICION, HOWEVER, IN THE FACT S OF THE CASE IN HAND, WE NOTE AS ALSO NOTED BY THE AO, THE CASH IS NOT DEPOSITED ON THE DAY OF ISSUE OF CHEQUE IN EVERY CASE, BUT IN THE CASE OF CERTAIN LOAN CREDITO RS, THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE ISSUE OF CHEQUE. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THESE ARE LOAN CREDITORS WHO HAVE LENDED AMOUNT OF RS.20,000/- TO RS. 2,00,000/- . AND THESE ARE PERSONS WHO DO NOT REGULARLY GO TO BANK TO DEPOSIT THEIR INCOM E AND WILL DO SO ONLY WHEN REQUIREMENT OF DOING IT BECOME A NECESSITY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE NEEDED THE LOAN, THESE LENDERS HAVE DEPOSITED THEIR CASH IN THEIR RE SPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS AND ISSUED CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS EXPLANATION O F ASSESSEE AND THE LENDERS HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND FAULT WITH AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE/ MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEES MONEY HAS BEEN ROUTED THROUGH THESE LEND ERS IN THE GUISE OF LOAN. IN A SIMILAR CASE, WHEREIN THE AO MADE THE ADDITION CIT ING THE SAME REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE LOAN, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CALC UTTA IN CIT VS. JAMNA DEVI DATED 15.02.2011 HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A ) AND TRIBUNAL IN DELETING THE ADDITION. B. AS FOR THEIR NET WORTH AND INCOME ASPECT, THEIR FINAL ACCOUNTS IS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THEIR CLAIM OF NET WORTH. C. AS FOR LOW DRAWINGS REFLECTED IN THEIR ACCOUNTS, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. D. IT IS QUITE COMMON THAT FAMILY FRIENDS ADVANCE M ONEY IN CASE OF NECESSITY. AND, MOREOVER, WE NOTE THAT IN SOME CASES ADVANCES WERE NOT MADE INTEREST FREE. E. THE FACT THAT THE I.T. RETURNS OF THE LOAN CREDI TORS WERE NOT SCRUTINISED, CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SINCE IT IS THE DEPART MENT WHO DECIDES WHICH CASES ARE TO BE SCRUTINISED. I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 10 (H) SINCE WE ARE ADJUDICATING THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2008-09, THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE RELIED UPON WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT SOURCE OF S OURCE NEED NOT BE PROVED. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THESE CASES THAT IT IS NOT THE ASSESSE E TO FIND OUT THE SOURCE FROM WHERE THE CREDITOR HAS ACCUMULATED THE LOAN AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE. (A) NEMICHAND KOTHARI'S CASE 264 ITR 254 (GAU) (B) JALAN TIMBERS' CASE 223 ITR 11 (GAU) G) IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y.: 2007-08, SI MILAR ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) WAS DELETED BY THE TRI BUNAL IN ITA NO. 26771K0112013; ORDER DATED 15.7.2014 (COPY ANNEXED AT SI. NO. 2) IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AS UNDER- 'THE ID COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. THEIR CONFI RMATION HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN, THEIR PAN NOS. AND COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS F ILED ALONG WITH THE BALANCE SHEET HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED HENCE HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCHARGED HER ONUS. HE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT THE ID CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE INCOME OR EARNING OF THE LOAN CREDITORS DURING THAT PARTICULAR YEAR AS THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR CAPACITY FOR LOAN GIVEN, WHEREAS THE LOAN HAD BEEN GIVEN FROM OUT OF OLD SAVINGS. THE ID. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS .H S.DATAWARE PRIVATE LIMITED IN ITAT NO.263 OF 2011, G.A.NO.2856 OF 20LL VIDE ORDER DATED 2L.09.20LL. THE ID DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE REQUIRED RELEVANT DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SU BMITTED CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN CREDITORS, COPIES OF THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS AND THEIR BALANCE SHEETS. WE AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ID COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INCOME OF THAT PARTICULAR YEAR CANNOT BE THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR THE CAPACITY OF THE LOAN GIVEN. A PERUSAL OF THE LOAN AMOUNTS REVEAL THAT THE LOAN AM OUNTS WERE NOT LARGE AMOUNTS AND HENCE IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT PERSON FILING RETURN SHOWING A SMALLER INCOME CANNOT HAVE ANY SAVING'. (K) IN THE CASE OF C.K. PLASTICS (P) LTD VS ITO, IT A NO 2076/KO1/2017, ITAT, KOLKATA 'C' BENCH, VIDE ITS DECISION DATED 24.08.20 18 (COPY ALREADY SUBMITTED IN THE COURSE OF HEARING) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE LOAN CREDITORS HAVE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS LIKE ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINAL ACCOUNTS, CONFIRMATION CERTIFICATE, BANK STATEMENTS AND RESPONDED TO A.O,'S NOTICE, IT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIO NS HAVE BEEN PROVED. WHEN THEIR ASSETS NET WORTH ARE SUBSTANTIAL, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THEY ARE CREDIT WORTHY. I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 11 INCOME EARNED DURING THE YEAR CANNOT BE THE ONLY CR ITERIA TO DETERMINE THE CREDITWORTHINESS. 11. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE TWO PAPER BOOKS COMPRI SING OF 319 PAGES WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE LIST OF LOAN CREDITORS FROM PAGES 36 38, LOAN CONFIRMATION FROM PAGES 39 TO 111. FROM PAGES 112 TO 177 OF THE PAPE R BOOK CONTAIN THE REPLY FILED BY THE LOAN CREDITORS TO THE AO PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S. 13 3(6) OF THE ACT. COPIES OF ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, FINAL ACCOUNT, BANK STATEMENT OF L OAN CREDITORS ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT IN SAMPLE BASIS PLACED FROM PAGES 178 TO 319 OF PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR PAIN STACKINGLY TOOK US THROUGH EACH OF THE LOAN CREDITORS DETAILS OF WHICH ARE ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK. WE NOTE THAT OUT OF 74 LOAN CREDITORS ONLY FEW CRED ITORS HAVE GIVEN LOAN TO ASSESSEE IN EXCESS OF RS. 3 LAKHS. 90% OF THE LOAN CREDITORS R ANGED FROM RS.15,000/- TO RS. 2,00,000/-. AND THE ASSESSEE HAS REPAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.70,88,606/- WHICH COMES TO 51.28% OF THE LOAN TAKEN FROM THE LENDERS. WE NOT E THAT OUT OF THIS TOTAL LOAN CREDITORS, OLD LOAN CREDITORS WHO LENT THE ASSESSEE WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.27,62,000/-. WE NOTE THAT OUT OF 74 LOAN CREDITORS, THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS U/S . 131 TO 35 LENDERS AND OUT OF WHICH 11 APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND THEIR DEPOSITIONS WE RE RECORDED BY THE AO AND OUT OF WHICH 24 RESPONDED TO THE SUMMON U/S. 131 BY FILING REPLIES AND CONFIRMED THE LOAN TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. AFFIDAVITS, ITR ACK NOWLEDGMENT, BALANCE SHEET, BANK STATEMENT HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IF THE AO HAD ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER/CREDITORS THEN HE SH OULD HAVE UNDERTAKEN THE EXERCISE AS SPELLED OUT BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN C IT VS. DATAWARE PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: 'IN OUR OPINION, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE THE BURDEN OF ASSESSING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR WHEN ADMITTEDLY THE CREDITOR HIMSELF IS AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE. AFTER G ETTING THE PAN NUMBER AND GETTING THE INFORMATION THAT THE CREDITORS IS ASSESSED UNDER TH E ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ENQUIRE FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE CREDITOR AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND WHETHER SUCH TRANSACTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE CREDITOR BUT INSTEAD OF ADOPTING SUCH COURSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF COULD NOT ENTER INTO THE RETURN OF THE CREDITOR AND BRAND THE SAME AS UNWORT HY OF CREDENCE. SO LONG IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE CREDIT OR HAS BEEN REJECTED BY ITS ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE IS B OUND TO ACCEPT THE SAME AS GENUINE WHEN THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR AND THE GENUINENE SS OF TRANSACTION THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. WE FIND THAT BOT H THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) AND THE TRIBUNAL BELOW FOLLOWED THE WELL-A CCEPTED PRINCIPLE WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED IN CONSIDERING THE EFFECT OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND WE THUS FIND NO I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 12 REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES. THE APPEAL IS THUS DEVOID OF ANY SUBSTANCE AND IS S UMMARILY DISMISSED. ' 12. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, WHEN THE LEN DERS THEMSELVES ARE INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND AFTER FURNISHING THE PAN NUMBER AND GE TTING THE INFORMATION THAT THE CREDITORS IS ASSESSED UNDER THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ENQUIRED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE LENDER/CREDITOR AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND WHETHER SUCH TRANSACTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER OF THE LENDER/CREDITOR BUT INSTEAD OF ADOPTING SUCH COURSE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF COULD NOT ENTER INTO THE RETURN OF THE CREDITOR AND BRAND THE SAME AS UNWORTHY OF CREDENCE. SO LONG IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE RETURN SUBMITTE D BY THE LENDER/CREDITOR HAS BEEN REJECTED BY ITS ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND TO ACCEPT THE SAME AS GENUINE WHEN THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR A ND THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. WITHOUT DOING SO IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS /CREDITORS CANNOT BE DOUBTED. HOWEVER, WHILE SCRUTINIZING EACH CREDITORS NET WO RTH AND INCOME THEY DREW AND MONEY LENT, WE NOTE THAT ON SAMPLE BASIS WE NOTE THAT THE LENDER SHRI AJIT SINGH HAD A CAPITAL ACCOUNT BALANCE OF RS.19,85,272/- AND HE HAS GIVEN RS.3,00,000/-TO ASSESSEE. LIKEWISE, CAPITAL ACCOUNT BALANCE WAS EXCEEDING RS 4 LAKHS IN MOST OF THE LENDERS CASES, EXCEPT A FEW AND THOSE LENDERS HAVE GIVEN ONLY RS.20,000/- L IKE ARUP MAITY. WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN NOTE THAT THE LOAN LENDERS HAD FIL ED THEIR KYC DOCUMENTS TO PROVE IDENTITY, BANK STATEMENT, BALANCE SHEET, INCOME TAX RETURN AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT, AFFIDAVIT FROM LOAN CREDITORS, LOAN CONFIRMATION AN D WHEN THE FACT WAS THAT OUT OF TOTAL LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.1,38,23,606/-, THE ASSESSEE HAD P AID BACK RS.70,88,606/-. THESE FACTS WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO GIVE RELIEF TO ASSESSEE. SO WE SUSTAIN THE ACTION OF LD CIT(A) EXCEPT THAT OF RS 5 LAKHS. BEFORE US THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE MONEY LENT BY MOHAN PRAS AD KHEMKA TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5 LAKH WHICH ADDITION IS SUSTAINED SINCE ASSESSEE FAILED T O SUBSTANTIATE THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT BALANCE OF THIS LENDER SO IT IS CONFIRMED AND THUS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 13 13. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE'S APPEAL RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.17,21,870/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED IN TRODUCTION OF CASH IN THE GUISE OF SALE OF SAREES. IN THIS REGARD, THE A.O. HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING OBS ERVATIONS AT PAGE 33 OF HIS ORDER- 'FROM THE CHART THAT ASSESSEE MADE INTRODUCTION OF CASH OF RS. 17,21,870/- ON ACCOUNT OF SAREES IN EXHIBITION FROM 13TH APRIL TO IS' APRIL I .E. WITHIN VERY SHORT SPAN OF 3(THREE) DAYS). BUT SHE HAS FAILED TO ADDUCE ANY MATERIAL EV IDENCE CORROBORATING THE CLAIM OF SALE OF SAREES. IT IS NOTHING BUT THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS IN THE-GUISE OF SALE OF SAREES WHICH S HE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE BY PLACING ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL EVIDENCE THOUGH SHE WAS SPEC IFICALLY ASKED IN THE SHOW CAUSE LETTER REFERRED TO THE ABOVE. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE' S CONTENTION IS NOT TENABLE AT ALL. MERE STATING THE FACT IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE SANCTIT Y OF THE TRANSACTION TAKEN PLACE UNTIL AND UNLESS IT IS SUPPORTED BY SPECIFIC AND CONCRETE EVI DENCE. THE ASSESSEE MADE A BULL STORY IS ALSO PROVED BY THE FACT THAT SHE HAS STATED CLOSING SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR SAREES AS ON 31.03.2008 AT RS. 16,99,920/- BUT THE SAME IS NOT F OUND DISCLOSED IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 FILED WITH THE DEPA RTMENT'. 14. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REP ORT VIDE PARA 5.2 TO 5.4 ARE AS UNDER- IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED PURCHASE INVOICE, CASH SALE MEMOS ETC IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM OF EXH IBITION SALE OF SAREES. THE ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THIRD PARTY WERE CONSIDERED BUT THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE DUE TO FOLLOWING REASONS- (I) THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE TRADING OF B USINESS OF SAREES. (II) THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FIN ANCIAL / INSURANCE SECTOR / SHARE TRADING. (III) THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN CASH ONLY. (IV) THE PERIOD OF EXHIBITION SALE CLAIMED WAS FOR THREE DAYS (13-15 APRIL 2007) ONLY. (V) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE REALISED IN CASH T HE SALE PROCEEDS OF EXHIBITION SALE WITHIN THREE DAYS (13-15 APRIL 2007) BUT PAYME NT TO SUNDRY CREDITORS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED DURING THE PERIOD OF WHOLE YEAR IN SUM S LESS THAN RS. 20000/- IN CASH. I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 14 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MANUFACTURED THE TRANSACTION OF EXHIBITION SALE OF SAREES TO INTRODU CE HER UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS. 17,21,870/- IN ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE SUM OF RS . 17,21,870/- WAS CORRECTLY FOUND TO BE UNEXPLAINED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS AND THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCL OSED SOURCE OF INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS VIDE PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER AT PAGE 14 OF BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- AS REGARDS, THE OTHER ADDITION OF RS.17,21,870/- MADE BY THE AO, THE RELEVANT FACTUAL MATRIX EMERGES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD SAREES WO RTH RS.17,21,870/- AS A GOING CONCERN IN AN EXHIBITION DURING THE F.Y. 2007-08 WHICH WAS HELD BETWEEN 13TH APRIL TO 15TH APRIL 2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED A SIMILAR SALE MADE IN THE PRECEDING FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07, AND NO ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THAT YE AR IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT WHILE REOPENING THE CASE FOR THAT YEAR. FOR THIS ASSESSME NT YEAR, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED ALL THE ORIGINAL SALE BILLS AND PURCHASE BILLS OF THE SAREES PURCHASED AND SOLD DURING THE EXHIBITION, AND THIS FACT HAS ALSO BEEN DULY RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE IN HIS REMAND REPORT. THE AO MADE ENQUIRIES WITH 3RD P ARTIES BY ISSUING LETTERS CALLING FOR INFORMATION U/S 133(6) AND CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIO N WITH THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE PAYMENT RECEIVED IN CASH, SO IT APPEARS THAT HERE A GAIN THE APPELLANT HAS DULY DISCHARGED HER ONUS. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OBSERVATION IN HIS REMAND REPORT ABOUT THE PERIOD OF EXHIBITION BEING THREE DAYS AND THE PURCHASE AND SA LE BEING IN CASH ARE RELEVANT, BUT APPEAR TO BE SECONDARY IN VIEW OF THE DIRECT EVIDEN CES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, AND THE 3RD PARTY CONFORMATIONS IN THE MATTER. IT IS ALSO S EEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECORDED ALL (THE TRANSACTIONS RELEVANT TO THE SALE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AND IN THE SITUATION THE AO HAS ALSO NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE INVOICES IN THE MATTER OF PURCHASE ARE ALSO PRESENT WITH MEMOS RELATING TO SA LES IN CASH, AND I FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION AND ARGUMENTS OF THE L A.R THAT THERE AR E MOSTLY CASH SALES ONLY IN EXHIBITIONS. GIVEN THAT THERE WERE 3RD PARTY CONFIRMATION ALSO M ADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO, AND THERE WAS NO REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, I FIND THAT THE DISBELIEF OF THE AO LEADING TO REJECTION WAS WITHOUT ADEQUATE REASONING AND FINDINGS IN THE MATTER. AFTER HAVING EXAMINED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE, AS WEL L AS THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN TH E EMERGENT FACTS AND THE LAW APPLICABLE. THE MATTER IS THEREFORE ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF TH E APPELLANT-ASSESSEE, AND THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND WE NOTE THAT THE A.O. HAS ADMITTED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENTS VIZ., PUR CHASE INVOICE, CASH SALE MEMOS, INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THIRD PARTIES (I.E. SUNDR Y CREDITORS) HAVE BEEN EXAMINED. WE NOTE THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WHO SUPPLIED CLOTHES /DRESSES/SAREES TO ASSESSEE HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE SOLD THE SAREES ON CREDIT TO NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT, AND THE SALES HAVE BEEN DULY BOOKED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF AC COUNT OF ASSESSEE. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, THE AO CANNOT SIMPLY BRUSH ASIDE ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS LIKE PURCHASE INVOICE, I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 15 CASH SALE MEMOS ETC. AND WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW CANNOT DISALLOW THE ENTIRE SALE C ONSIDERATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON THE SUSPICION THAT ASSESSEE CANNOT HAVE RAI SED THIS SALE CONSIDERATION WITHIN 3 DAYS OF EXHIBITION. FOR DISBELIEVING THIS CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WHEN SUPPORTED BY MATERIALS, THE AO HAS TO BRING ANY EVIDENCE/MATERIAL TO SHOW T HAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF EXHIBITION AT ALL AS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY ASSESSEE OR NO PURCHASE/SALES HAPPENED IN SUCH AN EXHIBITION. WE NOTE THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAS MADE SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF H IS PREDECESSOR BUT HAS NOT FOUND ANY INFIRMITIES IN THE ACCOUNTS, DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AN D CONFIRMATIONS RECEIVED FROM SUNDRY CREDITORS. ADVERSE VIEW CANNOT BE TAKEN IF NO INFI RMITY IS FOUND BY THE AO WHEN THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCE /INSURANCE/SHARES, VENTURED INTO THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF SAREES. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OU R NOTICE THAT LAST YEAR ALSO ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM SALE OF SAREES WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO ADVERSE VIEW CAN BE DRAWN WHEN THERE IS NO INFIRMITY CAN BE POINTED OUT, WHEN TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE/SALE IN THE BUSINESS OF SAR EE EXHIBITION IS ENTERED IN CASH, MORE SO WHEN THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED AND CONF IRMATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM SUPPLIERS OF GOODS (SUNDRY CREDITORS). WE NOTE THAT IN CLOTH BUSINESS, IT IS A PRACTICE TO GET GOODS ON CREDIT, PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT NEW IN THE TRADE AND WE NOTE THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FACTUAL FINDING AT PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE A.O. HAS ACCEPTED A SIMILAR SALE MADE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, WHICH FINDING HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED AS ERRONEOUS, SO WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFI RMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), SO WE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A). 17. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 12 LACS MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH INTRODUCTION IN THE PROPRIETARY FIRM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AT PAGE 32 OF HIS ORDER. THE AO NOTED FROM THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT (SUMMARISED VERSION) OF THE PROPRIET ARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE VIZ., M/S JYOTI CONSULTANCY SERVICES (REPRODUCED BY HIM AT PA GE 32), THE A.O. CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT RS. 12 LACS WAS INTRODUCED IN THE S AID CONCERN ON 20.04.2007 BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE NO DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE SOURCE WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. SO THE AO DREW ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 12 LAKHS. I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 16 18. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF LD. CIT(A) THAT DUE TO MIS-CONCEPTION THE AO MADE THE A DDITION ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE INTRODUCED CASH IN HER PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. JYOTI CONSULTANCY SERVICES OF RS. 12,00,000/- ON 20.04.2007. ACCORDING TO LD. AR , RS. 12,00,000/- WAS TRANSFERRED FROM M/S. JYOTI CONSULTANCY SERVICES (OUT OF THE SA LE CONSIDERATION FOR RS. 17,21,870/- FROM EXHIBITION) TO JYOTI SARAF AND NOT THE OTHER W AY ROUND AS WRONGLY UNDERSTOOD BY AO. AND THUS THE AO ERRONEOUSLY ADDED THE SAME IN C OMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS BROUGHT TO HIS KNOWLE DGE THAT CASH AND BANK FLOW STATEMENT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED DURING SCRUTINY WHICH SHOW THE CASH FLOW OF RS. 12,00,000/- FROM M/S. JYOTI CONSULTANCY SERVICES TO JYOTI SARAF ON 20.04.2007. (OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF SAREE DURING EXHIBITION CONDUCTED BETWEEN 13TH APRIL TO 15TH APRIL 2007 OF RS. 17,21,870/-)'. 19. THE AFORESAID FACTS ARE CORROBORATED BY THE DET AILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT PLACED AT PAGE 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE SAM E, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIAL RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF SAREES IN EXHIBIT ION UNDER - DATE AMOUNT 13.04.2007 7,18,900/- 14.04.2007 6,20,070/- 15.04.2007 3,82,900/- 20. THIS, ACCORDING TO LD. AR PROVES THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT BY THE PROPRIETOR CONCERN TO THE PROPRIETOR ASSESSEE AND DOES NOT WANT US TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER TAKING INTO CONSI DERATION THE AFORESAID FACTS TOOK NOTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN RS. 12 LAKHS FROM HER P ROPRIETARY CONCERN WHICH HAD CASH OF RS.17,21,870/- FROM SALE OF SAREES, WHICH HAS BEEN DISBELIEVED BY THE AO ON SUSPICION AND SURMISES, SO WHEN HE [LD. CIT(A)] HAVING ACCEPT ED THE ASSESSEES SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.17,21,870/- FROM SALE OF SAREES FROM EXHIBITI ON IN EARLIER GROUNDS, WHICH ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) HAVING BEEN UPHELD BY US, THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION OF WITHDRAWING RS. 12 LAKHS FROM PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. JYOTHI CONSULTA NCY SERVICES WHICH HAD FUND WITH IT IS A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION SUPPORTED BY CASH FLOW S TATEMENT (SUPRA). SO THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING RS. 12 LACS IS CONFIRMED. I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 17 21. GROUND NO. 4 AND THE LAST GROUND OF REVENUE'S APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 30,329/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNA CCOUNTED OPENING CASH BALANCE. THE A.O. HAS DEALT WITH THIS-ISSUE AT PAGE 32 OF HIS OR DER. ACCORDING TO HIM, AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.03.2007 FILED ONLINE, THE CA SH BALANCE AND SUNDRY CREDITOR IS SHOWN AT NIL FIGURE WHICH INDICATES NO CASH IS AVAILABLE AS ON 31.03.2007. AS A RESULT, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF THE OPENING CASH BALANCE ON 01.0 4.2007. HENCE THE ADDITION WAS ORDERED BY THE AO. 22. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y: 2007-08 ONLINE INCORPORATING THE FI GURES OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE BUT HAD NOT SUBMITTED THE FIGURES RELATING TO BALANCE S HEET ITEMS SINCE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FALLING U/S 44AB (APPARENT FROM THE FINAL ACCOUNTS OF HER PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S JYOTI CONSULTANCY SERVICES). HOWEVER, C OMPLETE FINAL ACCOUNTS OF THE PRECEDING YEAR AND THE INSTANT YEAR WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O WHICH CLEARLY REFLECTED THE FIGURE OF CASH BALANCE OF RS. 30,329/ - IS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, LD. C IT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AND GAVE HIS FINDING THAT THIS AMOUNT IS THE CLOSING BA LANCE AS ON 31.03.2007 WHICH FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTM ENT, SINCE IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT CLOSING BALANCE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IS THE OPENING BALANCE OF THIS YEAR. SO, IN THE LIGHT OF THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE NOT TO HAVE UPL OADED THE DETAILS OF CLOSING BALANCE IS JUSTIFIED AND SINCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN ACCE PTED, THE ADDITION WAS NOT WARRANTED AND, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION WHICH IS NOT INTERFERED WITH AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18TH JA NUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (A.L.SAINI) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18TH JANUARY, 2019 *AMIT KUMAR* I.T.A. NO. 985/KOL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09] PAGE | 18 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT ITO, WARD-35(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA , KOLKATA-110107. 2 RESPONDENT SMT. JYOTI SARAF, 1, OLD COURT HOUSE C ORNER, R.NO.519, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700001. 3 4 5 CIT(A), KOLKATA. CIT, KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR