DCIT, Jaipur v. MUNAWWARALI MUNSHI LOHAR, Jaipur

ITA 376/JPR/2014 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 37623114 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN ABXPL7233L
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 376/JPR/2014
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Jaipur
Respondent MUNAWWARALI MUNSHI LOHAR, Jaipur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 07-10-2016
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 13-05-2014
Judgment Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCHE S JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; OA JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 376/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-4 JAIPUR. CUKE VS. SHRI MUNAWWARALI MUNSHI LOHAR FLAT NO. 509 BALAJI TOWER-1 NEAR S.K. SONI HOSPITAL SIKAR ROAD JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ABXPL 7233 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 332/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. SHRI MUNAWWARALI MUNSHI LOHAR FLAT NO. 509 BALAJI TOWER-1 NEAR S.K. SONI HOSPITAL SIKAR ROAD JAIPUR. CUKE VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (OSD) CIRCLE -4 JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ABXPL 7233 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL. CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR (ADVOCATE) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 27.09.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/10/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT JM. THESE ARE TWO CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEALS)-II JAIPUR D ATED 21.03.2014 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2009-10. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. TH E EFFECTIVE GROUNDS IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER:- 2 ITA NO. 376 & 332/JP/2014 SHRI MUNAWWARALI MUNSHI LOHAR. GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL:- (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RE LIEF OF RS. 11 50 000/- OUT OF ADDITION OF RS. 22 00 000/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CAP ITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNER. GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL:- 1. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT 1961 IN VOID AB-INITIO DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 17 24 548/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) AND IN ES TIMATING THE GP RATE OF 15.40%. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 50 000/- UNEXPLAINED/UNVERIFIABLE CASH CREDITORS U/S 68 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT OF RS. 700000/- RECEIVED FROM SMT. NASEEB B ANO AND RS. 350000/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI SAGEER AHMED. 4. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 25 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED/UNVERIFIABLE CASH DEPOSIT U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 3 32/JP/2014. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT UN DER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME 3 ITA NO. 376 & 332/JP/2014 SHRI MUNAWWARALI MUNSHI LOHAR. TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 13.12.2011. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT THE AO MA DE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 17 24 548/- UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITORS U/S 68 RS. 22 00 000/- UNEXPLAINED BANK DEPOSITS U/S 69 OF RS. 3 25 000/-. THE ASSESSEE AG GRIEVED BY THIS ORDER PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. WHILE PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND TRADING ADDITION SUSTAINED THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF RS. 10 50 000/- AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 25 000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 3 AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER BOTH REVENUE AND THE ASS ESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. GROUND NO. 1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST ORD ER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST TRADING ADDITION OF RS . 17 24 548/-. BOTH THESE GROUNDS ARE BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND ARE BEING D ISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. 4.1 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REPRESEN TING HIS CASE. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE TRADING ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC. WERE FILED. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN REMA ND PROCEEDINGS ALL BILLS VOUCHERS ETC. WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO AND THEREFORE TR ADING ADDITION WAS NOT CALLED FOR. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO LETTER DATED 14.02.2013 TO BUTTRESS THE CONTENTION AND FURTHER LETTER DATED 11.03.2014 WHICH IS UNSIGNED. 4.2 ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. D/R OPPOSED THE SUBMIS SIONS. VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED 11.8.16 THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIR ED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ON THAT DAY NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED. 4 ITA NO. 376 & 332/JP/2014 SHRI MUNAWWARALI MUNSHI LOHAR. 4.3. IN REJOINDER THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT T HE REQUISITE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTE NTION TO PAPER BOOK FILED ON 21.10.2015 WHEREIN COPY OF AUDIT REPORT OF THE PROP RIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FILED. 4.4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE MADE AND CONFIRMED THE T RADING ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN D FAILED TO PRODUCE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BANK STATEMEN T. THESE EVIDENCES WERE REQUIRED FOR VERIFICATION AT THE END OF THE AO. THE REFORE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) ON THE TRADING ADDITION IS HEREBY SET ASIDE. THE ISSU E OF TRADING ADDITION IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECISION AFRESH. THE ASSESS EE WOULD FURNISH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. GROUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4.5. APROPOS TO GROUND NO. 1 LD. COUNSEL HAS NOT A DDRESSED ANY ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. HOWEVER WE FIND THAT TH E AO HAS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WERE GI VEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF NOTICE DATED 23.08.2010 19.05.2011 04.10. 2011 0 4.11.2011 AND 15.11.2011. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY FAULT WITH THE AOS A CTION FOR PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 144. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTE D. 5. GROUND NO. 3 IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 10 50 000/-. 5.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCES GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSEE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. HE 5 ITA NO. 376 & 332/JP/2014 SHRI MUNAWWARALI MUNSHI LOHAR. SUBMITTED THAT THE CONFIRMATION LETTER OF SHRI SAGE ER AHMED WAS DULY SUBMITTED TO THE AO. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PAN NUMBER OF SH RI SAGEER AHMED AND BANK STATEMENT WAS ALSO GIVEN. HE SUBMITTED THAT CONFIRM ATION LETTERS OF SHRI NAYEEM AHMED AND NASEEM BANO ALONG WITH COPY OF ITR AND BA NK STATEMENTS WERE GIVEN. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE EVIDENCES WERE NOT CONSIDER ED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 5.2. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. D/R OPPOSED THE SUBMI SSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO. 5.3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 3.5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE; ASS ESSMENT ORDER APPELLANTS WRITTEN SUBMISSION AOS REMAND REPORT AND APPELLANTS REJOINDER. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION IN RESPE CT OF LOANS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT FROM THREE PERSONS IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATION AND PRODUCTION OF THESE PERSONS FOR EXAMINATION. EVEN A O ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE PERSONS BUT THEY DID NOT ATTEND. DURING APPE AL PROCEEDINGS APPELLANT SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION BANK STATEMENT AN D COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN TO SUPPORT THAT CREDITS ARE EXPLAINED. E VIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT WERE SENT TO THE AO FOR REMAND REP ORT. THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND REJOINDER OF THE APPELLANT WER E QUOTED EARLIER. AS PER REMAND REPORT AO MENTIONED THAT THESE LENDERS DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE IMMEDIATE SOURC E OF MONEY GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT IS CASH DEPOSITS IN THEIR BANK ACC OUNTS. IN THE REJOINDER APPELLANT DISPUTED AOS CLAIM AND SUBMIT TED THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI NAYEEM AHMED WHO LENT RS. 11.5 LAKHS TO BE APPELLANT THE SOURCE WAS NOT CASH DEPOSIT BUT TRANSFER FROM THE P ROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE LENDER IN WHICH SUBSTANTIAL INCOME WAS DISCL OSED TO THE DEPARTMENT. IN THE CASE OF MRS. NASEEM BANO WHO LEN T RS. 7 LAKHS TO THE APPELLANT THE SOURCE OF MONEY LENT WAS CASH DE POSITS RECEIVED BY HER FROM SALE OF PERSONAL JEWELLERY. IN THE CASE OF THIRD LENDER SHRI SAGAR AHMED WHO LENT RS.3.5 LAKHS IMMEDIATE SOURC E WAS NOT CASH DEPOSIT BUT BALANCE CARRIED OVER IN THE BANK ACCOUN T. APPELLANT SUBMITTED THEIR CONFIRMATIONS WITH PAN WERE FILED A ND ACCORDINGLY CREDITS CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. 6 ITA NO. 376 & 332/JP/2014 SHRI MUNAWWARALI MUNSHI LOHAR. I HAVE CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY TH E APPELLANT DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CASE OF SHRI NAYE EM AHMED WHO LENT RS. 11.5 LAKHS TO THE APPELLANT THERE WAS NO CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LENDER. COPY OF HIS PAN CARD AN D BANK STATEMENT ALONGWITH INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR W AS SUBMITTED AND AS PER THAT THIS IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS AND GEN UINENESS WERE ESTABLISHED SINCE TRANSACTIONS WERE COMPLETELY THRO UGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THERE WAS NO CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK A CCOUNT. AS PER RETURN OF INCOME HE DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.13 .30 LAKHS. THE TOTAL OF HIS BALANCE SHEET IS OF RS.1.24 CRORES. FROM THE SE DETAILS HIS CREDITWORTHINESS IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. CONSIDERIN G ALL THESE FACTS CREDITS OF RS.11.5 LAKHS IN THE NAME OF SHRI NAYEEM AHMED IS CLEARLY EXPLAINED NAD THEREFORE NO ADDITION OF THIS AMOUNT CAN BE MADE. ACCORDINGLY ADDITION OF RS.11.50 LAKHS IS DELETED. AS REGARDS MRS NASEEM BANO WHO LENT RS.7 LAKHS TO T HE APPELLANT THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF MONEY LENT WAS I NDISPUTABLY CASH DEPOSITS. THE SOURCE OF MONEY LENT WAS INDISPUTABLY CASH DEPOSITS. THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT WAS CLAIMED TO BE SALE O F PERSONAL JEWELLERY. HOWEVER NEITHER APPELLANT NOR LENDER SUB MITTED ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE SALE OF SUCH JEWELLERY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT OF LENDER IS NOT EXPLAINED. FURTHER THE LENDER FILED INCOME T AX RETURN WITH DISCLOSING INCOME BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT AND DID NOT P AY ANY TAX. CONSIDERING THIS SOURCE OF RS.7 LAKHS CANNOT BE FR OM THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY HER. THEREFORE CREDITWORTHINESS IN THE CASE OF MRS. NASEEM BANO WHO LENT RS.7 LAKHS TO THE APPELLANT IS NOT EXPLAINED. WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED APPELLANT IN THE REMAN D PROCEEDINGS TO PRODUCE THE LENDER FOR EXAMINATION AND TO SUBMIT EV IDENCE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF JEWELLERY APPELLANT DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE AND ALSO DID NOT PRODUCE THE LENDER. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AP PELLANT DID NOT DISCHARGE HIS ONUS CAST UPON HIM BY THE AO AFTER EX AMINING THE CONFIRMATION AND DETAILS SUBMITTED. ACCORDINGLY IT IS HELD THAT CREDIT IN RESPECT OF MRS. NASEEM BANO WHO LENT RS.7 LAKHS TO THE APPELLANT IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. ADDITION OF RS.7 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. AS REGARDS THE THIRD LENDER SHRI SAGAR AHMED WHO L ENT RS.3.5 LAKHS TO THE APPELLANT I HAVE EXAMINED HIS BANK AC COUNT AND AS PER THAT THERE ARE ONLY CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOU NT FROM WHICH CHEQUE WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. CASH DEPOSIT MA Y NOT BE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE ISSUING CHEQUE BUT ENTIRE CREDIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IS OUT OF CASH DEPOSITS THEREFORE HIS CREDITWORTHIN ESS CANNOT BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED. APPELLANT SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION PAN OF THIS PERSON HOWEVER HIS INCOME TAX RETURN WAS NOT SUBMITTED. CO NSIDERING THE 7 ITA NO. 376 & 332/JP/2014 SHRI MUNAWWARALI MUNSHI LOHAR. SOURCE OF MONEY LENT TO THE APPELLANT OUT OF CASH D EPOSITS HIS CREDITWORTHINESS IS NOT EXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY CRE DIT IN THE NAME OF SHRI SAGAR AHMED IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDI TION OF RS.3.5 LAKHS IS CONFIRMED. AS PER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO E STABLISH THE IDENTITY GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CASH CREDITORS. IN THE CASE OF MRS. NASSEM BANO AND SHRI SAGEER AHMED THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED ONLY IDE NTITY OF THE PERSONS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS BUT CREDITWORTHINES S OF BOTH THE PERSONS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED AS THERE WAS NO SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE CREDITORS. ONE OF THEM HAVE FILED BELOW TAXABLE RETURN AND THE SOURCE OF LOAN I N CASE OF MRS. NASEEM BANO WAS FROM OUT OF SALE OF THE PERSONAL JEWELLERY AS SUCH NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD CIT(A). THE ASS ESSEE ALSO HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INCOME IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAGEER AHMED THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THIS GRO UND IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 25 000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 6.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATE D THE ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) I.E. CASH WERE DEPOSITED OUT OF CASH BOOK BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS AUDITED U/S 4 4AB OF THE ACT. THEREFORE HE PRAYED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 6.2. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND ARGUED THAT EVEN BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO THE 8 ITA NO. 376 & 332/JP/2014 SHRI MUNAWWARALI MUNSHI LOHAR. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED THE CASH BOOK FOR VE RIFICATION BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT. 6.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. EVEN BEFORE US T HE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF CASH AVAILABLE IN THE CASH BOO K OF THE FIRM BUT AS SUCH BOOKS ALLEGED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PR ODUCED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE PAPER BOOK SUGGESTING THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS MAINTAINING CASH BOOK. HOWEVER AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AN D MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE U/S 144 OF THE ACT WE DEEM IT P ROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFIC ATION. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE CASH BOOK BEFORE THE AO. IN THE EVENT T HE AO FINDS THAT THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF CASH IN HAND HE WOULD DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 7. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 376/JP/2014. 8. THE REVENUES SOLE GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS AGAIN ST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 50 000/- AS AGAINST TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 22 00 000/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 8.1. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. AS PER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY GENUINE NESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CASH CREDITORS. IN THE CASE OF SHRI NAYEEM AHMED WH O HAD GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 11.5 LACS THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY M ADE COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 68 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THIS LOAN THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THERE WAS A PAN THE 9 ITA NO. 376 & 332/JP/2014 SHRI MUNAWWARALI MUNSHI LOHAR. ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED SUBSTANTIAL INCOME IN THE IN COME TAX RETURN THEREFORE THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 11.5 LACS WHICH WAS MADE BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/10/2 016. SD/- SD/- ( HKKXPUN ( DQY HKKJR ) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 07/10/2016. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- THE DCIT CIRCLE-4 JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT SHRI MUNAWWARALI MUNSHI LOHAR JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ITAT JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 376 & 332/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR