M/s. Tirupati Garments and Finishing, Ahmedabad v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(4),, Ahmedabad

ITA 2946/AHD/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 294620514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAEFT0334J
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2946/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Tirupati Garments and Finishing, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(4),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-08-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 30-08-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 24-08-2011
Next Hearing Date 24-08-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 28-10-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO.2946/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2006-07 M/S. TRUPTI GARMENTS AND FINISHING RAMDEV ESTATE NR. SHAHWADI BUS STAND NAROL AHMEDABAD VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (4) AHMEDABAD PA NO. AAEFT 0334 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI VINOD TANWANI DR DATE OF HEARING: 24-08-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:30-08-2011 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XVI AHMEDABAD DATED 16 TH AUGUST 2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS: 1. PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF THE DEPOSITORS WERE DO NE IN FRONT OF THE LEARNED ITO ALONG WITH THEIR IDENTITY PROOF THOUGH THE DEPOSITS WERE DISALLOWED BY HIM AND ADDED BACK TO THE RETURN OF THE INCOME U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. MOST OF THE CONFIRMATION OF THE UNSECURED DEPOSI TORS WAS SUBMITTED AND FOR THE REST IT WAS REQUESTED TO CAL L INFORMATION DIRECTLY FOR WHICH THOUGH IT WAS NOT C ALLED DIRECTLY BY THE LEARNED ITO AND THE AMOUNTS ADDED B ACK ITA NO. 2946/AHD/2010 M/S. TRUPTI GARMENTS AND FINISHING VS ITO W- 6(4) AHMEDABAD 2 TO THE RETURN OF THE INCOME U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT 1961. 3. THE SIZE AND AMOUNT OF THE DEPOSITS TAKEN FROM T HE PARTIES ARE VERY SMALL PAN CARD OR PAN NUMBER OF T HE DEPOSITORS WAS NOT ASKED TO SUBMIT EITHER BY THE LE ARNED ITO NOR THE RESPECTED COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS AND THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE ORDER OF THE RESPECTED COMMISS IONER OF APPEALS THAT THE PAN CARD OF THE DEPOSITORS WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND HENCE THE GENUINENESS OF THE DEPOSITS DOES NOT PROVED. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON ALL T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.2 51 700/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS STATED THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOANS FROM 15 PARTIES. AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT ALL THESE LOANS ARE BELOW RS.20 000/- IN EACH CASE. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF UNSECURED LOAN W ITH FULL NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES WITH PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBE R AND CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES AND ALSO TO PROVE IDE NTITY GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS. THE AO STAT ED THAT OUT OF 15 PARTIES THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CONFIRMATION IN RES PECT OF 9 PARTIES MENTIONED IN PARA 4.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO STATED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING PARTIES THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS. IN RESPECT OF THE PARTIES IN WHOSE CASE CO NFIRMATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH PRO OF OF CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS. THE AO STATED T HAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW. THE AO FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS AND THEREFORE HE ITA NO. 2946/AHD/2010 M/S. TRUPTI GARMENTS AND FINISHING VS ITO W- 6(4) AHMEDABAD 3 ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.2 51 700/- U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE TH E LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION LETTER IN RESPECT OF 10 PARTIES. IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING PARTIES IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO WAS REQUESTED TO CALL FOR THE REQUIRED INFORMATION DIRECTLY FROM THE DEPOSITORS BUT THE AO DID NOT DO SO. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT ONE OF THE DEPOSITORS MR. MA NISH GOSWAMI FROM WHOM A LOAN OF RS.12 000/- WAS TAKEN AND TO W HOM THE SAME WAS PAID DIED IN THE YEAR 2007 AND THEREFORE HIS F AMILY MEMBERS WERE NOT AWARE OF THIS TRANSACTION AND HENCE THEY D ENIED HAVING GIVEN SUCH CONFIRMATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO ADMITTED THAT SOME OF THE DEPOSITORS ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THEY DID NOT HAVE BANK ACCOUNT OF THEIR OWN AND TO SAFEGUARD THEIR MO NEY/SAVING THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED WITH THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS PA ID TO THEM AS AND WHEN REQUIRED. ON BEING ASKED TO PROVE THE CRED ITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS AND THEIR PHYSICAL VERIFICATION SOM E OF THE DEPOSITORS WERE RANDOMLY SELECTED BY THE AO AND THEY APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND CONFIRMED THEIR DEPOSITS WITH THE ASSESSEE FIRM . THEY ALSO PRODUCED COPY OF THEIR PAN CARD BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT SIX PARTIES NAMELY S/SHRI B. N. KUMAR KANUBHAI PARMAR MANISH GOSWAMI SHAYMBHAI RANA VAISHALI SHAH AND V INODBHAI WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WHOSE MONEY WAS LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND DISMISSED THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HIS FINDINGS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO. 2946/AHD/2010 M/S. TRUPTI GARMENTS AND FINISHING VS ITO W- 6(4) AHMEDABAD 4 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE AO. PERUSAL OF THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED SHOWED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE THAT IN RESPECT OF THESE PARTIES. THEY HAD GIVEN CONFIRMATION WITH PAN NUMBER IS NOT CORRECT. THE ST ATUS OF CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THESE PARTIES IS AS UNDER: -- CONFIRMATION OF ASHISH PREMCHAND GOSWAMI SHOWS THAT THE ONLY ADDRESS GIVEN IS VILLAGE DURGAP UR. NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED OTHER THAN THIS. TH E LOAN IS STATED TO BE TAKEN IN CASH OF RS.19 000. THERE I S NO PAN NUMBER. HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS IN RESPECT OF THIS PARTY. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO CONFIRMATIO N OF BHIKHABHAI H PATEL FROM WHOM A CASH LOAN OF RS. 18 000 IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN. THE ADDRESS IS INCOMPL ETE AND THERE IS NO PAN NUMBER. HENCE THE APPELLANT HA D NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS IN RESPECT OF THIS PARTY. SIMILARLY THE POSITION IN RESPECT OF B N KUMAR. TH ERE IS A RECEIPT OF CASH LOAN OF RS 11 000 BESIDES THIS WAG ES AND HOUSE RENT SHOWN ON THE RECEIPT SIDE. THE ADDRESS I S INCOMPLETE AND THERE IS NO PAN NUMBER. HENCE THE APPELLANT HAD NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. SIMILARLY THE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO SHRI J P OZ A FROM WHOM CASH LOAN OF RS. 17 000 IS SHOWN. THERE IS NO ADDRESS AT ALL AND THERE IS NO PAN NUMBER. THE APPE LLANT HAS NOT A DISCHARGE ITS ONUS SIMILARLY THE POSITION IN RESPECT OF KANUBHAI PARM AR FROM WHOM CASH LOAN OF RS. 15 000 IS TAKEN. THERE IS NO PAN NUMBER. WITH RESPECT TO SHRI MANISH GOSWAMI THE ASSESSEE H AS SHOWN CASH LOAN OF RS. 12 000. THERE IS NO ADDRESS AT ALL AND THERE IS NO PAN NUMBER. INTERESTINGLY IN THE SUBMISSION THE APPELLANT STATED THAT THE MANISH GOS WAMI ITA NO. 2946/AHD/2010 M/S. TRUPTI GARMENTS AND FINISHING VS ITO W- 6(4) AHMEDABAD 5 LIVED IN MUMBAI AND HE DIED IN 2007 AND THEREFORE HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE NOT AWARE OF THE TRANSACTION. T HERE IS NO ADDRESS ON THE CONFIRMATION FORM. IT IS NOT K NOWN HOW THE APPELLANT CONTACTED THE FAMILY MEMBER. CLEA RLY THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. SIMILARLY THE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO LOAN FROM M ANOJ I PARMAR FROM WHOM CASH LOAN OF RS. 19 500 IS SHOWN. THERE IS NO PAN NUMBER AND HENCE THE APPELLANT DID NOT A DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO LOAN FR OM MAYURBHAI FROM WHOM CASH LOAN OF RS. 16 000 IS SHOW N. THE ADDRESS IS INCOMPLETE AND THERE IS NO PAN NUMBE R. HENCE THE APPELLANT DID NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO NIRMAL BHAI FROM WHOM CASH LOAN OF RS. 18 500 IS SHOWN. THERE IS N O ADDRESS AND THERE IS NO PAN NUMBER AND HENCE THE APPELLANT DID NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. SIMILARLY THE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO RAVIND RA JHA FROM WHOM CASH LOAN OF RS. 19 400 IS SHOWN. THERE I S NO ADDRESS AND THERE IS NO PAN NUMBER AND HENCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. SIMILARLY THE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO SHYAM SUN DAR RANA FROM WHOM CASH LOAN OF RS. 15 000 IS SHOWN. THERE IS NO PAN NUMBER AND HENCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. SIMILARLY THE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO VAISHA LI SHAH FROM WHOM CASH LOAN OF RS 15 000 IS SHOWN. THERE I S NO PAN NUMBER AND HENCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT A DISCHA RGE ITS ONUS. SIMILARLY THE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO VINODB HAI FROM WHOM CASH LOAN OF RS. 19 500 IS SHOWN. THERE IS NO ADDRESS AND THERE IS NO PAN NUMBER AND HENCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. ITA NO. 2946/AHD/2010 M/S. TRUPTI GARMENTS AND FINISHING VS ITO W- 6(4) AHMEDABAD 6 IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER PARTIES NO CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED AT ALL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THA T THE APPELLANT DID NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. EVEN IN RESPE CT OF A SINGLE PARTY. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE PARTIES. IT HAD BALANCE FROM WAGES I S ALSO NOT CORRECT BECAUSE SO-CALLED CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THE ENTIRE CASH RECEIVED ON A PARTIC ULAR DATE. THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER DISCHARGE ITS ONUS IN RESPECT OF PROVING THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS T HE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE. EVEN THE GENUINE NESS OF TRANSACTION AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPO SITORS. IN VIEW OF THIS REASON THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 24-08-201 1; HOWEVER NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SER VICE OF NOTICE. THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FORWARDED WHICH WAS REJECTED CONSIDERING THE EARLIER REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT MAY BE NOTED HERE THAT APPEAL WAS FILED ON 28-10-2010 IN THE OFFICE O F THE TRIBUNAL. THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 23-11-2010.THE A SSESSEE MADE A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND REQUESTED THAT THE AP PEAL MAY BE TAKEN UP IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2011 DUE TO SUDDE N RESIGNATION OF THE ACCOUNTANT. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THE REQUISITE INFORMATION. ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESS EE THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE. AGAIN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 09-03-2011 THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FORWARDED A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE FIXED IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2011 DUE TO SUDDEN RESIGNATION OF THE ACCOUNTANT AND MARCH ENDI NG THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PRODUCE THE REQUIRE D INFORMATION. ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THE APPEAL WAS ADJO URNED TO 07-04-2011. AGAIN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEAR ING ON ITA NO. 2946/AHD/2010 M/S. TRUPTI GARMENTS AND FINISHING VS ITO W- 6(4) AHMEDABAD 7 19-08-2011. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN MADE A REQUEST FOR A DJOURNMENT THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN UP IN OCTOBER 2011 BE CAUSE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED RECENTLY AND THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHO IS TO ARGUE THE MATTER IS OUTSIDE GUJARAT AND AS SUCH THE INFOR MATION COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED 24-08-2011. DESPITE THIS BACKGROUND OF THE CASE WH EN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 24-08-2011 AGAIN NOBODY APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR ARGUING THE MATTER AND THE ASSESSE E AGAIN SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT BECAUSE THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WA S OUT OF STATION. CONSIDERING THE NON-COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE O F THE ASSESSEE AND THAT REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAD BEEN ALLOWED AS PE R CONVENIENCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON EARLIER OCCASIONS WHICH WERE NOT AV AILED TO AND THAT NO PAPER BOOK IS PRODUCED ON RECORD REQUEST FOR AD JOURNMENT WAS REJECTED. 5. I MAY ALSO NOTE HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH RULE 18 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES IN THE MATT ER. THE RELEVANT RULES ARE PRODUCED AS UNDER: RULE 18 : (1) IF THE APPELLANT OR THE RESPONDENT AS THE CASE MAY BE PROPOSES TO REFER OR RELY UPON ANY DOCUMENT OR STATEMENTS OR OTHER PAPERS ON THE FILE OF OR REFERR ED TO IN THE ASSESSMENT OR APPELLATE ORDERS HE MAY SUBMIT A PAPER BOOK IN DUPLICATE CONTAINING SUCH PAPERS DULY INDEXED AND PAGES AT LEAST A DAY BEFORE THE DATE OF ITA NO. 2946/AHD/2010 M/S. TRUPTI GARMENTS AND FINISHING VS ITO W- 6(4) AHMEDABAD 8 HEARING OF THE APPEAL ALONG WITH PROOF OF SERVICE O F A COPY OF THE SAME ON THE ORDER SIDE AT LEAST A WEEK BEFOR E: PROVIDED HOWEVER THE BENCH MAY IN AN APPROPRIATE CASE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE PAPER BOOK] (5) THE PARTIES SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO SUBMIT AN Y SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER BOOK EXCEPT WITH THE LEAVE OF THE BENCH. (6) DOCUMENTS THAT ARE REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS SHALL AL ONE BE TREATED AS PART OF THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL. (7) PAPER/PAPER BOOKS NOT CONFORMING TO THE ABOVE RULES ARE LIABLE TO BE IGNORED.] 6. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE RULES AND THE FACTS STATED ABOVE AND REPEATED REQUESTS FOR ADJOURNMENT MADE BY THE ASSES SEE WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECU TING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE ABSENCE OF T HE ASSESSEE. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE FIND INGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7.1 THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARATI PVT. LTD. VS CIT 111 ITR 951 HELD AS UNDER: IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RS.20 000 AS LOAN IN ITS BOOKS TAKEN FROM TWO ITA NO. 2946/AHD/2010 M/S. TRUPTI GARMENTS AND FINISHING VS ITO W- 6(4) AHMEDABAD 9 PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED CONFIRMATORY LETTERS FROM THOSE PARTIES BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IN SUPPORT OF THE TWO LOANS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER SERVED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON THE ALLEGED CREDIT ORS AND SINCE THOSE NOTICES CAME BACK UNSERVED THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TREATED THE LOAN AS ASSESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EVEN ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES. ON FURT HER APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT MERE FILING OF CONFIRMATORY LETTERS DID NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS THAT LAY ON THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON THE RECORD TO ESTABLISH TH E IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS: HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD TAKEN ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION AND THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE LOANS REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WAS NOT PERVERSE OR UNREASONABLE. 7.2 THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS UNITED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CO. (P) LTD. 187 ITR 596 HELD AS UNDER: THE PRIMARY ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDITS IN ITS ACCOUNT. IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE PRIMA FACIE THE IDENTITY OF HIS CREDITORS THE CAPACITY OF SUCH CREDITORS TO ADVANCE THE MONEY AND LASTLY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. ONLY WHEN THESE THINGS ARE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIMA FACIE AND ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDUCED EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE AFORESAID FACTS DOES THE ONUS SHIFT O N TO THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS. MERE PRODUCTION OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER ITA NO. 2946/AHD/2010 M/S. TRUPTI GARMENTS AND FINISHING VS ITO W- 6(4) AHMEDABAD 10 WOULD NOT BY ITSELF PROVE THAT THE LOANS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM THOSE LOAN CREDITORS OR THAT THEY HAV E CREDIT-WORTHINESS. HELD THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE TRIBUNAL MISDIRECTED ITSELF IN HOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE SIMPLY BECAUSE SOME OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE BY CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED LENDERS. A NUMBER OF OTHER ASSESSEES HAD ALSO ADMITTED THAT LOANS OBTAINED FROM THESE BANKER S AGAINST HUNDIS WERE NOT GENUINE AND SUCH HUNDI LOANS REALLY REPRESENTED THEIR OWN CONCEALED INCOME . THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE LOANS IN QUESTION WERE GENUINE. 7.3 THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. PRECISION FINANCE PVT. LTD. 208 ITR 465 HELD THAT EVEN THE LOAN THROUGH BANK CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE UNLESS THE IDENT ITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS ARE PROVED. MERE PAYMENT OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE IS NOT SACROSANCT NOR CAN IT M AKE A NON- GENUINE TRANSACTION GENUINE. 7.4 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DURGA PRASAD MORE 82 ITR 540 AND SUMATI DAYAL 214 ITR 801 HELD THAT THE COURTS AND TRIBUNAL HAVE TO JUDGE THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE M BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES AFTER CONS IDERING THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. 7.5. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FU RNISH ANY EVIDENCE ITA NO. 2946/AHD/2010 M/S. TRUPTI GARMENTS AND FINISHING VS ITO W- 6(4) AHMEDABAD 11 BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO PROVE THE CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND ALSO FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF T HE CREDIT IN THE MATTER. MERE FILING OF THE CONFIRMATION IS NOT SUFF ICIENT TO PROVE GENUINE CREDIT IN THE MATTER. SOME OF THE CREDITORS WERE FOUND TO BE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING MEAGER INCOME AND EVEN IN SEVERAL CASES NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE IDENTIT Y OF THE CREDITORS THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTION IN THE MATTER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE DETAIL S MENTIONED IN THE CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITORS FOR WHOM CONFIRMA TIONS HAVE BEEN FILED AND SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT THESE WERE ALSO I NCOMPLETE. THUS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS OF PROVING GE NUINE CREDIT IN THE MATTER. DESPITE GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES EVE N BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. E VEN NO PAPER BOOK IS FILED AS PER THE RULES NOTED ABOVE. THE LEARNED DR THEREFORE RIGHTLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE GEN UINE CREDITS IN THE MATTER. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS I AM OF THE VIEW THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE GENUINE CREDITS IN THE MAT TER. NO INFIRMITY IS POINTED IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO. 2946/AHD/2010 M/S. TRUPTI GARMENTS AND FINISHING VS ITO W- 6(4) AHMEDABAD 12 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE DR ITAT CONCERNED 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD