The ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad V. Shri Dipen Gunvantrai Patel, Bhavnagar

ITSSA 423/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3381 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROOP CHAND
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS SHRI DIPEN GUNVANTRAI PATEL, PROP. M/S DEEPAK ENTERPRISE, ABOVE NAGINA MASJID, KHARGATE, BHAVNAGAR - 364001 PAN: AGPPP8863K (RESPONDENT) SHRI DIPEN GUNVANTRAI PATEL, PROP. M/S DEEPAK ENTERPRISE, ABOVE NAGINA MASJID, KHARGATE, BHAVNAGAR - 364001 PAN: AGPPP8863K (APPELLANT) VS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), AHMEDABAD (RESPON DENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI ROOP CHAND , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI UMAID SINGH BHATI , A.R. I T (SS) A NO . 423 / A HD/20 13 A SSE SSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 C.O. NO. 122/AHD/2014 (IN IT (SS) A NO. 423 /AHD/20 13) ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 I.T.A NO. 423 /AHD/20 13 & C.O. NO. 122/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SHRI DIPEN GUNVANTRAI PATEL PROP. M/S DEEPAK ENTERPRISE 2 DATE OF HEARING : 23 - 06 - 2 017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 - 08 - 2 017 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS REVENUE S APPEAL & ASSESSEE S CO FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 , AR I SE FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - I, AHMEDABAD DATED 06 - 08 - 2013 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A) - I/CC - 1/180/2012 - 13 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) R.W.S. 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - (1) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED - IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,93,255/ - ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION INCOME. (2) T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.73,87,331/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS, AS THE MATTER IS YET TO REACH ITS FINALITY AND THE ASSESSEE IN WHOSE CASE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE, IS LIKELY TO CHALLENGE THE ISSUE BEFORE THE ITAT. 3. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS FINALIZED ON 18 TH FEB, 2013 IN WHICH ADDITION OF RS. 73 ,87, 331/ - WAS MADE AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE ACT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOME TRANSACTION WITH M/S PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY FOR TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 61739706/ - . FURTHER ON VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSEE S LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. PARSHWA TRADING CO. FOR F INANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09 IT WAS SEEN THAT THERE WAS OPENING DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 73 87331/ - . AGAIN IN FINANCIAL I.T.A NO. 423 /AHD/20 13 & C.O. NO. 122/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SHRI DIPEN GUNVANTRAI PATEL PROP. M/S DEEPAK ENTERPRISE 3 YEAR 2007 - 08 M/S. PARSHWA TRADING CO. HAS SHOWN A SUM OF RS. 7387331/ - AS UNSECURED LOAN FROM THE ASSESSEE. BUT HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THIS AMOUNT UNDER ANY HEAD OF ASSETS. THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF SHRI BHAVESH H. SHAH WHO RUN S THE BUSINESS OF M/S PARSHWA TRADING CO. CONFIRMED THAT M/S. PARSHWA TRADING CO. HAS RECEIVED THIS AMOUNT AS SECURED LOAN AND ALSO PAYS INTEREST ON THE SAME. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT IT WAS NOTICED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 A DISALLOWANCE U/S. 68 OF T HE ACT WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF BINTAL D. B A K SHI DURING THE PERIOD OF PARSHWA TRADING C O FOR EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT AND SAME UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 7387331/ - BY THE DCIT CIRCLE - 1 BHAVNAGAR. HE FURTHER MENTIONED THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE WAS MAD E AFTER RECORDING THE STATEMENT OF SHRI DIPEN G. PATEL U/S. 311 OF THE ACT IN WHICH MR. DIPEN G. PATE L HAD DENIED AND STATED THAT HE NEVER EVER GAVE ANY LOAN TO M/S. PARSHWA TRADING CO. HE ALSO STATED THAT HE HAD NORMAL BUSINESS OF DD/CASH WITH M/S. PARSHWA TRADING CO. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT IT W ILL BE JUSTIFIABLE TO MAKE PROTECTIVE ADDITION IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION HAS ALREADY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HAND S OF B INTAL D. BAKSHI (PROPRIETOR OF PARSHWA TRADING CO.) 4. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - I.T.A NO. 423 /AHD/20 13 & C.O. NO. 122/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SHRI DIPEN GUNVANTRAI PATEL PROP. M/S DEEPAK ENTERPRISE 4 9. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT TH E A.O. HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.73,87,331/ - U/S.69 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE A.O. DID SO BECAUSE M/S. PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY HAD SHOWN AN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.73,87,331/ - FROM THE APPELLANT IN F.Y.2007 - 08 IN ITS BOOKS IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. 9.1 THE APPELLANT DENIED HAVING GIVEN ANY SUCH UNSECURED LOAN CATEGORICALLY AND STATED THAT NONE OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL SHOWED THIS AMOUNT ALSO THERE WAS NO SUCH ENTRY IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HENCE HE REQUESTED THE A.O. TO GIVE COPY OF BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS OF M/S. PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY AND ALSO ASKED THE A.O. TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE ENTRY. 9.2 THE APPELLANT CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT HE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY LOAN CONFIRMATION TO M/S. PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY AND DURING EXAMINATION BY THE ADIT(INV.) THE APPELLANT HAD CATEGORICALLY DENIED HAVING GIVEN ANY UNSECURED LOAN AND AT THAT TIME M/S. PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY HAD NOT PREFERRED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE APPELLANT. 9.3 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF JA IN HAWALA DIARY TO EMPHASIZE THAT ENTRY RECORDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THIRD PARTY CANNOT BIND THE ASSESSEE UNLESS THE PROSECUTION ESTABLISHES THE NEXUS AND PROVES THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENTRIES MADE. 9.4 THE APPELLANT ALSO SAYS THAT HE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF BILL DISCOUNTING, CHEQUE DISCOUNTING AND ISSUING CHEQUES / DD FOR CASH AND NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF GIVING LOANS. 9.5 IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN ANY LOAN TO M/S. PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY. THE ONLY BASIS F OR THE A.O. FOR HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.73,87,331/ - IN UNSECURED LOAN TO M/S. PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY, IS THE ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY PROPRIETOR BINTAL D BAXI. NO OTHER EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BR OUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT IN FACT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE SUCH INVESTMENT. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT APPELLANT HAS, AT EVERY STAGE, DENIED HAVING GIVEN SUCH LOAN AND SUCH DENIAL HAS NOT BEEN CONTRADICTED BY ANY ONE. 9.6 FURTHER, IF THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN UNS ECURED LOAN, THEN JUST BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY TAX @30% ON SUCH LOAN WOULD NOT MAKE THE APPELLANT DENY SUCH LOAN, BECAUSE HE WOULD STILL GET BACK THE BALANCE AMOUNT, WHEREAS BY HAVING DENIED GIVING SUCH LOAN THE APPELLANT WOULD LOSE ALL HIS RIGHTS IN CLAIMING BACK SUCH LOAN. 9.7 MOREOVER, MERE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S. PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY DO NOT ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN ANY LOAN TO SUCH CONCERN. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. V.C. SHUKLA & OTHERS DELIVERED ON 02.03.1998 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF THIRD PARTIES WOULD NOT BIND THE I.T.A NO. 423 /AHD/20 13 & C.O. NO. 122/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SHRI DIPEN GUNVANTRAI PATEL PROP. M/S DEEPAK ENTERPRISE 5 ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO INCRIMINATE THE AS SESSEE. 9.8 IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT USING SUCH DENIAL BY THE APPELLANT THE A.O. IN THE CASE OF M/S. PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY, PROPRIETOR SHRI BINTAL D. BAXI HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.73,87,331/ - U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT HOLDING THE UNSECURED LOAN TO BE BOGUS. 9 .9 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION U/S.69 OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 9.10 THE ADDITION OF RS.73,87,331/ - IS HENCE DELETED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE NOTICED FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ISSUING CHEQUES/DRAFTS TO VARIOUS PARTIES THROUGH DIFFERENT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY HIM AT DIFFERENT PLACES. THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS U/S. 69 WAS MADE IN THE C A S E O F T H E A SSESSE E ON THE BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 68 WAS MADE I N THE CASE OF P A R SHWA TRADING COMPANY FOR THE SAME AMOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THIS ADDITION ON PRO TECTIVE BASIS IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. M/ S. PARSHWA T R A DING COMPANY HAS UNILATERALLY SHOWN THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT AS UNSEC URED LOAN OBTAINED FROM THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO NOT SHOWN FROM WHICH BANK A/C THE SAID AMOUNT W AS OBTAINED AS UNSECURED LOAN FROM THE ASSSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED TH A T HE WAS HAVING NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION S WITH M/S. PARSHWA TRADING CO. OF CHEQUE ISSUE AND CHEQUE DISCOUNTING. HE RECEIVED CHEQUE FROM THE PARTY AND H A ND OVER CASH TO THEM. WE HAVE PERUSED THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH DATED 01/05/2017 IN THE CASE OF SMT. BINTAL D. BAX I PROP. OF PARS HWA TRADING COMPANY IN WHOSE CASE THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION WAS MADE I.T.A NO. 423 /AHD/20 13 & C.O. NO. 122/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SHRI DIPEN GUNVANTRAI PATEL PROP. M/S DEEPAK ENTERPRISE 6 FOR THE SIMILAR AM O U N T. WE FIND THAT T HE CO - ORDINATE BENCH VIDE ITA NO. 1365/AHD/2014 HAS SET ASIDE THE ABOVE CASE OF THE PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY FOR RE - ADJUDICATION TO T HE ASSESSING OFFI CER. THE RELEVANT PARA 20 AND 21 OF THAT ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 20. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN LITTLE DETAIL, BUT DEVOTED MUCH ENERGY IN REPRODUCTION OF CIT(A) S ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF SHRI DIPIN G. PATEL. THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO REPRODUCED THE FINDING OF THE AO, SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. WHILE MAKING AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI DIPIN G. PATEL, THE LD.CIT(A) JUST REITERATED REPLIES GIVEN BY HIM. BUT HE HAS NOT ANALYSED INFERENCE REQUIRED TO BE DRAWN FROM TH OSE REPLIES. BASICALLY, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS THE ONUS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE SOURCE OF LOAN AND ITS NATURE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE CONFIRMATION FROM CREDITOR, THEN IT WILL BE CONSTRUED THAT SHE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ONU S. AS OBSERVED EARLIER, IN THE NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD.CIT(A) S ACTION COULD BE APPRECIATED. BUT, IT IS TO BE SEEN IN THE CONTEXT THAT WHEN A CREDITOR TURN HOSTILE, THEN WHETHER AN ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE HIS CASE WITH THE H ELP OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR NOT. THE ROLE OF THE AO IS NOT ONLY OF PROSECUTOR, RATHER HE IS AN ADJUDICATOR ALSO. IT IS FOR THE REVENUE TO PROVIDE A PLATFORM TO THE ASSESSEE WHERE WITH THE HELP OF STATUTORY POWERS OF THE AO, SHE COULD EXPLAIN HER PO SITION FOR NOT VISITING HER WITH TAX LIABILITY. 21. LOOKING INTO THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPUGNED ORDERS DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GRANTED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. THESE A PPEALS ARE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE - ADJUDICATION. THE LD.AO SHALL EXAMINE THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE EXHIBITING DETAILS OF LOANS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, AND THEREAFTER HE WOULD DIRECT THE BANK FOR PROVID ING BANK STATEMENT OF THE CREDITOR DURING THOSE PERIODS. HE WOULD SUPPLY ALL INCRIMINATING MATERIALS TO THE ASSESSEE FOR GIVING AN EXPLANATION. THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO SUBMIT ANY EXPLANATION OR DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF HER DEFENCE. WE OBSERVED THAT THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE ABOVE DECISION STATED THE DENIAL OF THE LOAN GIVEN TO PROP. OF PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY BY THE ASSESSEE DESERVES NOT TO BE ACCEPTED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF HIS S TATEMENT. IT IS NOT STRICT RULE OF LAW, BUT AS A GENERAL RULE I.T.A NO. 423 /AHD/20 13 & C.O. NO. 122/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SHRI DIPEN GUNVANTRAI PATEL PROP. M/S DEEPAK ENTERPRISE 7 OF LAW BUT AS GENERAL RULE OF PREC EDENCE, THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY SHALL CAL L FOR OTHER MATERIAL CORROBORATION . IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING TEN BANK ACCOUNT S W HERE AS COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS W ERE SUPPLIED TO SMT. B INTAL D. BAXI P ROP. OF PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY AS A RESULT SHE COULD NOT GET OPPORTUNITY TO MA TCH THE ENTRIES AVAILABLE IN HER LEDGER ACCOUNT WITH THE TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. LOOKING TO THE AB OVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO DESERVE S TO BE SET ASIDE F OR RE - ADJUDICATION. IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE ALL THE BANK A CCOUNT S OF THE ASSESS EE AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE PROP. OF PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY TO PROVE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF EXAMINATION/CROSS EXAMINATION TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER PARTIES IN THE SET - ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. CO NO. 122/AHD/2014 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THE CROSS OBJECTION: - I.T.A NO. 423 /AHD/20 13 & C.O. NO. 122/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SHRI DIPEN GUNVANTRAI PATEL PROP. M/S DEEPAK ENTERPRISE 8 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE YEAR UNDER REVIEW CANNOT BE ABATED. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THE PLEA THAT AS ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IS PASSED FOR THE YEAR UNDER REVIEW AND NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH , THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE ABATED. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE THE DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.241 OF 2008 IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (CENTRAL),KANPUR V. SMT. SHAILA AGARWAL WHEREIN THE I T DEPARTMENT ITSELF HAS TAKEN THE VIEWS THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED U/S 143(3) AND NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS IS FOUND, THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE CAN NOT BE ABATED. 8. WE OBSERVE THAT SEARCH ACTION WAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE HA D ADMITTED THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BU SINESS OF ISSUING CHEQUES/DRAFTS TO VARIOUS PARTIES THROUGH DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY HIM. HE HAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT CHEQUE S WERE ALSO DISCOUNTED BY H I M BY MAKING PAYMENT IN CASH IN WHICH HE USED TO CHARGE COMMISSION. DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SOME TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S. PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 73,87,331/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS DENIED OF PROVIDING ANY SUCH KIN D OF UNSECURED LOAN TO THE SAID PARTY . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE CHEQUES RECEIVED FROM PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY WERE WITHDRAWN AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH. WE HA V E NOTICED THAT CPU, DI ARIES, VOUCHERS AND OTHER RECORDS OF THE ASSESSE WERE SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH ACTION. IT W A S ALSO NOT ICED THAT ASSESSEE WAS OPERATING A NUMBER OF BANK ACCOUNTS. WE FIND FROM THE DECISION OF I.T.A NO. 423 /AHD/20 13 & C.O. NO. 122/AHD/2014 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. SHRI DIPEN GUNVANTRAI PATEL PROP. M/S DEEPAK ENTERPRISE 9 T HE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT AS MENTIONED ABOVE IN THE CASE OF PROP. OF PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE TRUE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS IS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED FROM THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. AFTER CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AND THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF PARSHWA TRADING COMPANY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE C.O. OF THE ASSESSSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AN D THE C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 28 - 08 - 201 7 SD/ - SD/ - ( S.S. GODARA ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 28 /08 /2017 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDA BAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,