ITO, Rewari v. Sh. Ranjan Kumar Yadav, Rewari

ITA 662/DEL/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2014 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 66220114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAGFG4929G
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 662/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Rewari
Respondent Sh. Ranjan Kumar Yadav, Rewari
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 14-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 12-11-2014
Next Hearing Date 12-11-2014
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 04-02-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL AM AND SHRI C.M. GARG JM ITA NO.660/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ITO WARD-2 AAYAKAR BHAWAN MODEL TOWN REWARI. VS. GOLDEN TEX VPO PANCHORE REWARI. PAN : AAGFG4929G ITA NO. 661 /DEL/201 1 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ITO WARD-2 AAYAKAR BHAWAN MODEL TOWN REWARI. VS. NIHAL SINGH P/O M/S GOLDEN TEX VPO PANCHORE REWARI. PAN : AVFPS0732B ITA NO. 662 /DEL/201 1 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ITO WARD-2 AAYAKAR BHAWAN MODEL TOWN REWARI. VS. RANJAN KUMAR YADAV P/O GOLDEN TEX VPO PANCHORE REWARI. PAN : ABCPY0181B ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAV ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : S HRI SATPAL SINGH SR. DR ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 2 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL AM: THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE RELATING TO THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007-08 ARE IN RESPECT OF THREE SEPARATE BUT C ONNECTED ASSESSES. SINCE SOME OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM OFF BY TH IS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.661/DEL/2011- SH. NIHAL SINGH 2. THE RESPONDENT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL NAMELY SH RI NIHAL SINGH YADAV IS ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF M/S GOLDEN T EX WHICH IS RESPONDENT IN ITA NO.660/DEL/2011. GOLDEN TEX A P ARTNERSHIP FIRM WAS ESTABLISHED ON 14.03.2006 WITH FOUR PARTNE RS. ONE PARTNER NAMELY SMT. KANTA DEVI RETIRED ON 20.3.20 07. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSME NT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE CONTRIBUTED CAPITAL OF `30.84 LAC IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRM THE AO MADE CERTAIN INQUIR IES ABOUT THE SOURCE OF SUCH CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION. UNSATISFIED W ITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO TREATED THE SUM OF `30.84 LAC AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE HAND S OF THE FIRM ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 3 FOR WHICH ADDITION WAS MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. T HE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION OF THE EQUAL SUM WAS MADE BY THE AO IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) GOT CONVINCED WIT H THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE FIRM AND ORDERED FOR TH E DELETION OF ADDITION. CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION ALSO STOOD DE LETED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AG AINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE CONTRIBUTED CAPITAL OF `30.84 LAC IN THE PARTNERSHI P FIRM GIVING EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF VARIOUS AMOUNTS INV ESTED IN THE FIRM. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED SOME DECISIONS AND CERTAIN OVERALL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE CASH CREDIT ADDITIONS U/S 68 AND ORDERED FOR THE DELETION OF ADDITIONS IN A SWEEPING MANNER WITHOUT TESTING THE FACTS OF EACH CREDIT ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF SUCH PRINCIPLES. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING SUCH ADDITIONS HAS BEEN ASSAILED IN THE P RESENT APPEALS WE WILL DEAL WITH EACH ONE SEPARATELY FOR ASCERTAIN ING AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE SATISFIED THE GENUINENESS OF T HE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 4 4. AT THIS STAGE IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THE PRE SCRIPTION OF SECTION 68 WHICH PROVIDES THAT : WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND C REDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YE AR AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT I N THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SATISFACTORY THE SUM SO CRE DITED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE CRUX OF THE PROVISION IS THAT T HE PRIMARY ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT ENTRY APPEARING IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS TRITE THAT GENUINENESS OF SUCH CREDIT CAN BE PROVED BY SATISFYING THREE INGRE DIENTS NAMELY THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR HIS CAPACITY TO PAY T HE AMOUNT AND THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. GENUINENESS OF TRA NSACTION SOMETIMES GOES HAND IN HAND WITH THE CAPACITY OF TH E PAYER. THESE INGREDIENTS CAN BE SATISFIED BY MAKING A SPEC IFIC AND SUBSTANTIATED EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE A MOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE CREDITOR WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEE N GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY MEANS OF LOAN OR GIFT. SOURCE OF THE AM OUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYER IS VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT IN THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. SOU RCE OF A CREDIT ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 5 CAN BE PROVED BY GIVING A SPECIFIC EXPLANATION DULY SUBSTANTIATED AND NOT BY A GENERAL UNSUBSTANTIATED EXPLANATION. O NCE SUCH A SPECIFIC AND SUBSTANTIATED EXPLANATION IS TENDERED THEN IT IS FOR THE AO TO EITHER ACCEPT THE SAME OR REJECT WITH SOM E CONTRARY EVIDENCE. THERE CAN BE NO REJECTION OF SUCH SPECIFI C AND SUBSTANTIATED EXPLANATION IN A GENERAL MANNER. BUT IF THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ITSELF GENE RAL OR UNSUBSTANTIATED THEN NOTHING WRONG CAN BE FOUND IN THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REJECTING SUCH GENERAL EXPLANATION AND MA KING ADDITION. IT IS CLEAR THAT PRIMARY ONUS IS ALWAYS ON THE ASSE SSEE TO PROVE THE TRANSACTION. IF THE PRIMARY ONUS IS NOT AT ALL DISCHARGED OR PARTLY DISCHARGED BY GIVING A GENERAL VAGUE OR UNS UBSTANTIATED STATEMENTS THEN THE ASSESSEE CANNOT LATER ON PUT T HE BLAME ON THE AO FOR ADDITION. IT CAN BE EXPLAINED WITH THE HELP OF A SIMPLE ILLUSTRATION. IF THE ASSESSEE GIVES A SPECIFIC EXPL ANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT BEING THE SAVINGS OF THE PAY ER THEN SUCH AN EXPLANATION IS GENERAL UNLESS THE ASSESSEE PROV ES THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH SAVINGS WITH SOME COGENT EVIDENCE . IF THE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SAVINGS IS SIMPLICITER AND TH E ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT LEAD TO THE NON-REBUTTABLE PRE SUMPTION OF ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 6 THE EXISTENCE OF SAVINGS THEN THE AO MAY BE JUSTIF IED IN MAKING ADDITION. IF HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE PROVES THE EXIST ENCE OF SAVINGS WITH SOME RELEVANT EVIDENCE THEN THE AO CANNOT REJ ECT SUCH AN EXPLANATION UNLESS HE POINTS OUT SOME FALLACY IN S UCH SPECIFIC EXPLANATION WITH SOME CONTRARY MATERIAL. SIMILARLY THE MERE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNE L CANNOT IN ITSELF PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOURCE. ONE CANNOT CREATE A THIRD PERSON TO LEGALIZE HIS BLACK MONEY BY ROUTI NG IT THROUGH SUCH THIRD PERSONS BANK ACCOUNT. IN SUCH CIRCUMST ANCES THE ONUS IS ALWAYS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PAYER. IF SUCH A SOURCE IS NOT PROVED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO THEN THE ADDITION SO MA DE CANNOT BE SAID TO LACK CREDENCE. OUR VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM SEVERAL JUDGMENTS INCLUDING CIT VS. P. MOHAN KALA (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) SAJAN DASS & SONS V. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 435 ( DEL) AND CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR (2007) 292 ITR 552 (DEL). POSITION IS ALMOST IDENTICAL IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 69 DEALING WITH UEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. THIS SECTION PROVIDES THAT : WHERE I N THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 7 ACCOUNT IF ANY MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE O F INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM I S NOT IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SATISFACTORY THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE OF SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVING TH E GENUINENESS OF INVESTMENT IS ALWAYS ON THE ASSESSEE. IF AN EXP LANATION IS TENDERED THAT THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT IS SOME LOAN OR GIFT FROM SOMEONE ELSE THEN THE ASSESSEE IS OBLIGED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH EXPLANATION BY SHOWING THE IDEN TITY OF THE PAYER HIS CAPACITY TO PAY AND THE GENUINENESS OF T HE TRANSACTION. THE PRINCIPLES AS APPLICABLE TO SECTION 68 IN THIS REGARD APPLY WITH FULL VIGOR TO SECTION 69 AS WELL IN SUCH A SITUATIO N. WITH THE ABOVE UNDERSTANDING WE WILL NOW PROCEED TO EXAMINE IF T HE ASSESSEE PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY H IM FROM OTHER PERSONS. GIFT OF `2.50 LAC FROM SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR . 5. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH GIFT OF `2.50 LAC FROM SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR ON 15.4.2006. SHRI RAJEND ER KUMAR ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 8 HAPPENS TO BE THE REAL BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. AN AFFIDAVIT WAS FURNISHED ALONG WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE SOURCE OF AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR. IT WAS STATED THAT SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR SOLD HOUSE NO. 960 SECTOR 3 P ART-1 HUDA REWARI ON 7.3.2006 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF `9.54 LAC OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF `2.50 LAC WAS GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE A O DID NOT ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT ON THE GROUND TH AT THE AMOUNT WAS GIFTED AFTER ONE MONTH AND A FEW DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SALE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR WAS A PERSON OF LITTLE MEANS AND HENCE HE COULD NOT HAVE GIVEN TH E GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) AS DISCUSSED ABOVE DELE TED THE ADDITIONS IN AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD MANNER WITHOUT G OING INTO THE DETAILS OF EACH AMOUNT. 6. FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEES BROTHER SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR SOLD HIS HOUSE ON 7.3.2 006 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF `9.54 LAC OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF `2 .50 LAC WAS CLAIMED OT HAVE BEEN GIFTED ON 15.4.2006. THE AO H AS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT ABOUT SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR SELLING HIS HOUSE PROPERTY FOR THE STATED CONSIDERATION. THE MERE FA CT THAT THE GIFT WAS MADE AFTER ONE MONTH AND A FEW DAYS CANNOT DISP ROVE THE ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 9 GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT WHEN WE CONSIDER THE FACTS IN TOTALITY THAT IT WAS A BROTHER HELPING HIS REAL BROTHER WHO IN TURN WAS SETTING UP HIS FACTORY AND FURTHER THE SOURCE OF THE GIFT I S SPECIFIC AND SUBSTANTIATED. WE THEREFORE APPROVE THE VIEW TAK EN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THIS ADDITION. LOAN OF `1 LAC FROM SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR . 7. SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE APART FROM THE ABOVE GIFT ALSO ADVANCED A LOAN OF `1 LAC TO T HE ASSESSEE BY MEANS OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THE AO DID NOT ACCE PT THE GENUINENESS OF THIS LOAN BECAUSE THE COPY OF BANK A CCOUNT EVIDENCED THAT IT WAS AN OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT ON 3.8.2 006 WHEN THE LOAN WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) DEL ETED THE ADDITION. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS AMPLY BORNE OUT THAT THE LOAN OF `1 LAC WAS GIVEN BY ONE BROTHER TO ANOTHER THROUGH CHEQUE. SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS EVIDENT FROM THE AOS OWN RECORDING THAT THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAJENDE R KUMAR WAS OVERDRAWN TO THAT EXTENT. AS THE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 10 DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IS SPECIFIC AND SUBSTAN TIATED WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THIS ADDITION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. LOAN OF `50 000/- FROM SMT. SUMITRA DEVI . 9. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED INTEREST F REE LOAN OF `50 000/- FROM SMT. SUMITRA DEVI W/O SHRI DUSHYANT KUMAR ON 19.7.2006. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF SMT . SUMITRA DEVI IT WAS NOTICED THAT SHE DEPOSITED CASH OF `50 000/- ON 11.7.2006 AND THE EQUAL AMOUNT WAS THEREAFTER ADV ANCED AS LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT SHE WAS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE DRAWING MONTHLY SALARY OF `10 000-12 000/- WHICH WAS CREDITED TO HER BANK ACCOUNT. ONE WITHDRAWAL OF `57 000/- WAS MADE ON 10.2.2006. IT WAS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT OF LOAN WAS RE-DEPOSITED OUT OF THE ABOVE WITHDRAWA L. THE AO REFUSED TO ACCEPT THIS VERSION FOR WHICH ADDITION WAS MADE. SUCH ADDITION CAME TO BE DELETED. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT SM T. SUMITRA DEVI WAS ADMITTEDLY AN EMPLOYEE DRAWING A SALARY OF `10 000/- ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 11 12 000/- PER MONTH. SHE WITHDREW A CASH OF `57 000 /- FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT ON 10.2.2006 AND THE SUM OF `50 000/- OUT OF THAT WAS RE-DEPOSITED ON 11.7.2006 IN HER BANK ACCOUNT FOR WHICH A CHEQUE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN. THE GEN UINENESS OF THE AMOUNT CREDITED BY SMT. SUMITRA DEVI IN HER BAN K ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES BY MEANS OF SALARY CHEQUES HAS NOT BE EN DISPUTED BY THE AO. IT IS FURTHER CLEAR THAT SHE WITHDREW A SUM OF `57 000/- FROM HER REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RE-DEPOSITED FOR GIVING LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS SIMPLY REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION OF RE-DEPOSIT OF CASH WITHOUT POINTING OUT THE UTILIZATION OF SUCH AMOUNT ELSEWHE RE. ONCE IT IS ADMITTED THAT A PARTICULAR SUM WAS WITHDRAWN FROM B ANK THEN ITS REDEPOSIT CANNOT BE ASSAILED BY THE REVENUE WITHOU T SHOWING THE UTILIZATION OF SUCH AMOUNT ELSEWHERE. AS THE A MOUNT OF `57 000 WAS WITHDRAWN FROM HER KNOWN SOURCES OF INC OME ITS RE- DEPOSIT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED. CONSIDERING THE TOTAL ITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THIS ADDITION. ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 12 LOAN OF `50 000/- FROM SHRI DUSHYANT KUMAR 11. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SHRI DUSHYANT KUMAR A DVANCED AN INTEREST FREE LOAN F `50 000/- BY CHEQUE ON 19.7 .2006. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI DUSHYANT KUMA R IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT A SUM OF `50 000/- WAS DEPOS ITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON 11.7.2006. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT OF `50 000/- WAS RECEIVED BY SHRI DUSHYANT KUMAR FROM HIS FATHER. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPLAN ATION TENDERED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADD ITION. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THIS ADDITION. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF `50 000/- ADVANCED BY S HRI DUSHYANT KUMAR WAS RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM HIS FATHER AN AGRI CULTURIST WHO GAVE THIS AMOUNT TO HIS SON FOR ADVANCEMENT OF LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WORTH THE NAME TO S UBSTANTIATE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF SHRI OM PRA KASH OUT OF WHICH AN ALLEGED GIFT OF `50 000/- WAS MADE TO SRI DUSHYANT KUMAR. IT IS A CASE OF VAGUE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED EX PLANATION. IN ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 13 THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR THE SAL E OF CROP SUCH AS FORM NO. J ETC. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ACC EPT THE GENUINENESS OF THIS CREDIT. THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE IS OVERTURNED AND THE ADDITION IS RESTORED. GIFT OF `3 LAC BY SHRI RAM KISHAN YADAV 13. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A GIFT OF `3 LAC ON 22.7.2006 BY CHEQUE FROM HIS FATHER SHRI RAM KISHA N YADAV. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT HIS FATHER SOLD AGRICULTURAL PRODU CE OF `4 LAC IN 2006 AND OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS A SUM OF `3 LAC W AS GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SH RI RAM KISHAN YADAV THE AO OBSERVED THAT A SUM OF `3 LAC WAS DEP OSITED IN CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON 13.7.2006 JUST BEFORE GIVING A CHEQUE OF EQUAL AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SHRI RAM KISHAN YADAV WAS GETTING A PALTRY PEN SION OF `6 000/- PER MONTH. BY HOLDING THE GIFT TO BE NON-G ENUINE HE MADE ADDITION FOR THIS SUM. THE ADDITION SO MADE WA S DELETED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 14. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 14 CONCOCTED A STORY OF HAVING RECEIVED A GIFT OF `3 L AC FROM HIS FATHER SHRI RAM KISHAN YADAV. THERE IS NO RELIABL E EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SALE PROCEEDS OF `4 LAC OF AGRICUL TURAL PRODUCE OUT OF WHICH THE ALLEGED GIFT OF `3 LAC WAS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT THAT SHRI RAM KISHAN YADAV IS DRAWING PENS ION OF `6 000/- PER MONTH AND HAD NEVER CREDIT BALANCE OF MORE THAN `7 000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT DO SUPPORT THE AOS C ONTENTION ABOUT THE NON-GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT ALLEGED TO HA VE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE ADDITION OF `3 LAC. LOAN OF `3.35 LAC FROM SHRI RAM KISHAN YADAV . 15. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SHOWED TO HAVE RECEIVED A LO AN OF `3.35 LAC FROM HIS FATHER SHRI RAM KISHAN YADAV. IT WAS STATED THAT SHRI RAM KISHAN YADAV RAISED A LOAN OF `3.35 LAC FR OM ONE SHRI ROHTASH AND IN TURN ADVANCED THIS LOAN TO THE ASS ESSEE. NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS THE AO M ADE THE ADDITION WHICH WAS DELETED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 16. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIN D THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ABOVE TRANSACTION OF RECEIPT OF GIFT FROM SH. ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 15 RAM KISHAN YADAV HAS BEEN HELD TO BE NOT GENUINE. I N THIS ALLEGED LOAN TRANSACTION AGAIN WE ARE SATISFIED TH AT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MAD E A STORY OF HIS FATHER RAISING LOAN FROM SOME OTHER PERSON WHIC H WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AGAIN AS A LOAN. EXCEPT FOR RENDERING A GENERAL AND VAGUE CONTENTION OF THE RECEIPT OF LOAN FROM SOME T HIRD PERSON THERE IS NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE TRANSA CTION OF THE FATHER RAISING LOAN FROM THE THIRD PERSON. WE THER EFORE APPROVE THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING THIS ADDITION. LOAN OF `1.50 LAC FROM SHRI RAM KISHAN YADAV 17. AGAIN THE ASSESSEE SHOWED TO HAVE RECEIVED A F URTHER LOAN OF `1.50 LAC FROM THIS FATHER SHRI RAM KISHAN YADA V. EQUAL AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY MEANS OF CHEQ UE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SHRI RAM KISHAN YADAV RECEIVE D THIS AMOUNT FOR THE SALE AGREEMENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL L AND WHICH WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME. T HE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THIS ADDITION. ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 16 18. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE EXPLA NATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF TH IS LOAN FROM SHRI RAM KISHAN YADAV IS AGAIN VAGUE AND UNSUBSTANT IATED. IT IS OF SAME NATURE AS WAS GIVEN FOR THE OTHER TWO ITEMS OF LOAN/GIFT FROM HIS FATHER WHICH HAS BEEN DISPROVED BY US IN THE EARLIER PARAS. FOLLOWING THE SAME VIEW WE SET ASIDE THE I MPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. LOAN OF `4 LAC FROM SMT. SHAKUNTLA DEVI W/O SHRI J AG RAM YADAV . 19. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A LOAN FR OM SMT. SHAKUNTLA DEVI AMOUNTING TO `4 LAC ON 4.8.2006 BY M EANS OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DATED 2.8.2006. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. SHAKUNTLA DEVI IT WAS NOTICED THA T A SUM OF `3 LAC WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH IN TWO INSTALLMENTS IN HE R BANK ACCOUNT ON 3.7.2006 AND 2.8.2006. SHE CLAIMED TO HAVE RAIS ED A CASH LOAN OF `2 LAC FROM ONE SHRI HARDWARI LAL AND FURT HER A LOAN OF `1 LAC FROM SMT. SANTRA DEVI WHICH WERE STATED TO BE D EPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE GENUIN ENESS OF THIS ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 17 TRANSACTION AND MADE THIS ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 20. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS MADE A STORY OF SMT. SHAKUNTLA DEVI RECEIVING LOANS FROM SOME PERSONS IN CASH AND THEREAFTER ADVANCING THE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER ROUTING THE SAME THROUGH HER BANK AC COUNT. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS VAGUE AND UNSU BSTANTIATED. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE RECEIPT OF LOANS FROM SMT. SHAKUNTLA DEVI WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THIS ADDITION. WE THEREFORE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION . LOAN OF `3 LAC FROM SHRI JAGRAM YADAV. 21. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A LOAN OF `3 LAC FROM SHRI JAG RAM YADAV WHO HAPPENS TO BE HUSBAND OF SM T. SHAKUNTLA DEVI THE ALLEGED CREDITOR WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE ADVANCED A LOAN OF `4 LAC TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEE RECEIVED A DRAFT OF `3 LAC FROM SHRI JAGRAM YADAV. ON PERUS AL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI JAGRAM YADAV IT WAS OBSERVED THAT HE HAD ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 18 DEPOSITED CASH OF `2 LAC IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON 31. 7.2006. HE ALSO CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A CASH LOAN OF `2 LAC ON 30.7.2006 FROM ONE SHRI RAKESH AND IN TURN GAVE THE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES EXPLAN ATION AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) DEL ETED THE ADDITION. 22. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE FACT OF TH IS LOAN OF `3 LAC FROM SHRI JAGRAM YADAV ARE QUITE CLOSE TO THE ALLE GED LOAN OF `4 LAC CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM THE WIFE OF SHRI JAGRAM YADAV. HERE AGAIN A STORY HAS BEEN CREATED THAT SHRI JAGRAM YADAV RAISED A CASH LOAN FROM THE THIRD PERSON AND ADVANCED THE SAME AMOUNT AS LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE TO CONFIRM THE RECEIPT OF LOAN BY SHRI JAGRAM YADAV FROM THE THIRD PERSON. THIS FALSIFIES THE EX PLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN R ECEIVED FROM SHRI JAGRAM YADAV. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO. ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 19 LOAN OF `3.49 LAC FROM SMT. KALA DEVI. 23. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED THIS LOAN ON 7.11.2006 BY CHEQUE. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUN T OF SMT. KALA DEVI IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE CASH OF `1.50 L AC WAS DEPOSITED IN HER ACCOUNT ON 3.11.2006. SHE ALSO CL AIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A CASH LOAN OF `1.50 LAC ON 2.11.2006 FROM HER BROTHER. NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS THE AO MADE THE ADDITION WHICH CAME TO BE DELETED IN THE FIRST APPE AL. 24. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT RECORD IT IS AGAIN NOTICED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS MADE THE SAME STORY OF THE SALE OF CROP BY SOMEONE ELSE WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY SUBSTANTIATION OF THE ACTUAL SALE AND THE MONEY FINALLY FLOWING TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE RECEIPT OF ACTUAL LO AN FROM SMT. KALA DEVI WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THIS ADDITION. THE SAME IS THEREFORE RESTORED. ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 20 LOAN OF `3 LAC FROM SHRI MAHABIR PARSAD YADAV 25. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A LOAN FR OM SHRI MAHABIR PARSAD YADAV BY CHEQUE IN TWO INSTALMENTS O F `2 LAC AND `1 LAC RESPECTIVELY. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUN T OF THIS PERSON THE AO OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE CASH DEPOSI TS OF EQUAL AMOUNTS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. SINCE SHRI MAHABIR PA RSAD YADAV EXPIRED THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ADDUCE ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 26. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUN T OF SHRI MAHABIR PARSAD YADAV OF EQUAL SUMS JUST FEW DAYS PR IOR TO THE ADVANCING OF THE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS IN B ANK ACCOUNTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION GOT WRONGLY DELETED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. WE THEREFORE ORDER FOR THE RESTORATION OF THIS ADDITION. ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 21 LOAN OF `4 LAC FROM SHRI RAMJAS YADAV . 27. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A LOAN OF `4 LAC BY CHEQUE FROM SHRI RAM JAS YADAV. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAMJAS YADAV IT WAS OBSERVED THAT EQUAL A MOUNT OF CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR WHICH THERE W AS NO EXPLANATION AS SHRI RAMJAS YADAV HAD ALSO EXPIRED. THE AO MADE ADDITION AND THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME. 28. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THI S ADDITION ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF SHRI MAHABIR PARSAD YADAV DISCU SSED IMMEDIATELY ABOVE FOR WHICH WE UPHELD THE ADDITION . FOLLOWING THE SAME VIEW WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON T HIS SCORE AS WELL AND ORDER FOR THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF `4 LAC IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. LOAN OF `80 000/- FROM SHRI RAKESH KUMAR . 29. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED INTEREST FREE LOAN OF `80 000/- FROM SHRI RAKESH KUMAR. ON PERUSAL OF TH E BANK ACCOUNT OF THIS PERSON IT WAS NOTICED THAT A SUM O F `25 505/- WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT BY CHEQUE APART FROM A CASH DEPOSIT OF `44 500/-. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER FILED A NY CONFIRMATION ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 22 OF THE LOAN NOR FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO WHICH CAME TO BE D ELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 30. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE ALLEGED LOAN FROM SHRI RAKESH KUMAR IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EVEN FILED CONFIRMATION OF THIS LOAN NOR GIVEN ANY SOURCE OF D EPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR OUT OF WHICH A LOAN OF `80 000/- WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE ORDER FOR THE CONFIRMATION OF THE AD DITION OF `80 000/-. LOAN OF `70 000/- FROM SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR YADAV . 31. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED INTEREST FREE LOAN OF `70 000/- FROM SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR YADAV. ON PERUS AL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR YADAV IT WAS S EEN THAT EQUAL AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT THE AO MADE ADDITION WHICH WAS DELETED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 32. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT RECORD WE FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THIS ALL EGED LOAN ARE ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 23 SIMILAR TO THOSE OF ALLEGED LOAN OF `80 000/- FROM SHRI RAKESH KUMAR. HERE ALSO THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR YADAV WH ICH WAS DEPOSITED BY HIM IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THIS IS AGAIN A CASE OF VAGUE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED EXPLANATION OF THE SOURC E OF THE AMOUNT. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING THIS ADDITION. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE TO T HIS EXTENT. 33. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.662/DEL/2011- SH. RAJAN KUMAR YADAV 34. THIS ASSESSEE IS AGAIN A PARTNER IN GOLDEN TE X. HE CONTRIBUTED A SUM OF `26 LAC AS HIS CAPITAL IN THE FIRM. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT IN THE HAN DS OF THE FIRM FOR LACK OF PROPER EXPLANATION WITH REFERENCE TO TH E SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE O N SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE SAME WAY AS HE DID FOR SH. NIHAL SINGH THE OTHER PARTNER WHOSE A PPEAL HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF HEREINABOVE. WE WILL DEAL WITH VARIOUS ITEMS LEADING TO TOTAL OF `26 LAC ONE BY ONE. ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 24 LOAN OF `5 LAC FROM SHRI KEHAR SINGH 35. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A LOAN OF `5 LAC FROM ONE SHRI KEHAR SINGH BY MEANS OF DEMAND DRAFT ON 17 .6.2006. ON A PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT BY SHRI KEHAR SING H THE AO OBSERVED THAT CASH OF `5 LAC WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS B ANK ACCOUNT ON 16.6.2006 OUT OF WHICH A DEMAND DRAFT FOR EQUAL SU M WAS ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON 17.6.2006 AS LOAN. SH RI KEHAR SINGH STATED THAT HE TOOK A LOAN OF `5 LAC IN CASH FROM O NE SHRI LALA RAM WHO HAD SOLD HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 5.6.2006 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF `8 84 000/-. AN AFFIDAVIT OF SH. LALA RAM WAS FILED TO THIS EFFECT. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE GEN UINENESS OF THE CREDIT AND MADE THE ADDITION. THE LD .CIT(A) DELETE D THE SAME. 36. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE GAVE A SPECIFIC AND SUBSTANTIATED EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF AMOUNT IN HIS HANDS OF SHRI KEHAR SINGH WHO HAD R ECEIVED A LOAN FROM SH. LALA RAM ON THE SALE OF THE LATTERS AGRI CULTURAL LAND FOR `8 84 000/- ON 5.6.2006. THE AO DID NOT CONTROVERT THIS SPECIFIC AND DEFINITE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE AM OUNT COMING ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 25 INTO THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED O PINION THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS BY PROVING THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF SH. KEHAR SINGH BY MEANS OF A DEFINITE AND SPECIFIC EXPLANATION. NOW IT WAS THE T URN OF THE AO TO REJECT SUCH EXPLANATION WITH SOME COGENT MATERIAL IF HE WAS INCLINED TO MAKE ADDITION. NOTHING OF THE SORT HAS BEEN DONE BY HIM. WE THEREFORE APPROVE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE L D. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IN DELETING THE ADDITION. LOAN OF `3 LAC FROM SHRI ROOP CHAND. 37. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A LOAN OF `3 LAC WHO IN TURN CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A CASH LOAN FROM ONE SHRI GORI SHANKAR. THE SAID SH. GORI SHANKAR STATED TO HAVE R ECEIVED LOAN OUT OF A SUM OF `6 50 000 REALIZED BY HIM FROM THE SALE OF HIS LAND ON 5.6.2006. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION WHICH WAS DE LETED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 38. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT SHRI ROOP CHAND WHO AD VANCED THE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE STATED IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH LOAN FROM SHRI GORI SHANKAR WHO HAD RECEIVED A ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 26 SUM OF `6.50 LAC FROM SALE OF HIS LAND ON 5.6.2006. THE AO DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSION ADVANCED BEFORE HIM. HE SIMPLY PROCEEDED TO DISBELIEVE THE EXPLANATION WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION OF THE CLAIM BY WHICH IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT GORI SH ANKAR HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF `6.50 LAC FROM SALE OF LAND ON 5. 6.2006 OUT OF WHICH THE SAID LOAN OF `3 LAC WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSE SSEE IN THE SAME MONTH. IN VIEW OF OUR REASONS GIVEN FOR ACCEP TING THE GENUINENESS OF LOAN OF `5 LAC FROM SHRI KEHAR SINGH SUPRA WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE. LOAN OF `2 LAC FROM SHRI ASHOK KUMAR . 39. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A LOAN OF `2 LAC FROM SHRI ASHOK KUMAR THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT DATED 22.6.20 06. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THIS PERSON IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT A SUM OF `2 00 500/- WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS B ANK ACCOUNT JUST ONE DAY PRIOR TO THE DATE OF MAKING OF THE DEM AND DRAFT FOR GIVING LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO THEREFORE MA DE ADDITION FOR THE SAID SUM BECAUSE NO PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION WAS F URNISHED ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF SHRI ASHOK KUMAR. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 27 40. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE NEITHER FILED ANY CONFIRMATION OF LOAN NOR ANY DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE HOW THE AMOUNT CAME TO THE BANK A CCOUNT OF SHRI ASHOK KUMAR. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH BASIC DET AILS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE AO. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE ON THIS SCORE. LOAN OF `3 LAC FROM SHRI SUNITA YADAV . 41. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A LOAN FR OM HIS WIFE SMT. SUNITA YADAV. DURING THE COURSE OF INVESTIGAT ION BY THE AO SHE DEPOSED THAT A LOAN OF `3 LAC WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER RECEIPT OF A GIFT OF THE SAME AMOUNT FROM HER SISTE R SMT. RAJESH YADAV. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE TRANSACTION THE AO MADE THE ADDITIO N WHICH CAME TO BE DELETED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 42. THE ONLY EXPLANATION ABOUT THE RECEIPT OF TH IS LOAN GIVEN BEFORE THE AO WAS A RECEIPT OF THE GIFT FOR EQUAL S UM BY SMT. SUNITA YADAV FROM HER YOUNGER SISTER. NO EVIDENCE WORTH THE NAME WAS PRODUCED ON RECORD TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF A MOUNT IN ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 28 THE HANDS OF HER SISTER. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION WAS WRONGLY DE LETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE THEREFORE RESTORE THE SAME. LOAN OF `2.50 LAC FROM SHRI POORAN CHAND . 43. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A LOAN OF `2.50 LAC FROM SH. POORAN CHAND. THE SOURCE OF AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF SHRI POORAN CHAND WAS EXPLAINED TO BE A FURTHER LOA N OF EQUAL SUM RECEIVED BY HIM FROM ONE SHRI ABHEY SINGH. THE SOURCES OF MONEY IN THE HANDS OF SHRI ABHEY SINGH WAS STATED T O BE THE AVAILABILITY OF A SUM OF `5 LAC IN HIS HANDS FROM T HE SALE OF LAND ON 3.7.2006. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 44. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE ASSES SEE GAVE DEFINITE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF SHRI POORAN CHAND BEING THE AMOUNT OF LOAN RECEIVED FROM SHRI ABHEY S INGH OUT OF SALE OF HIS LAND ON 3.7.2006. THE AO DID NOT FIND ANY FAULT WITH THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY FURTHER INQUIRING ABOU T THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF LAND IN THE HANDS OF SHRI AB HEY SINGH. ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 29 HAVING NOT DONE SO IT IS IMPERMISSIBLE TO TURN ARO UND AND MAKE OUT A CASE OF UNSUBSTANTIATED EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT. WE THEREFORE APPROVE THE VIEW TAKEN BY T HE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS SCORE. LOAN OF `2.50 LAC FROM SHRI SHEESH RAM YADAV . 45. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A LOAN OF `2.50 LAC THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT DATED 2.11.2006 FROM SHRI SHEE SH RAM YADAV. ON A PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THIS PA RTY IT WAS OBSERVED THAT EQUAL AMOUNT OF CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE MAKING OF DEMAND DRAFT. THE SOU RCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI SHISH RAM YADAV WAS STATED TO BE SALE OF CROP FOR WHICH NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E WAS PLACED ON RECORD. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION WHICH WAS DELE TED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 46. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT APART FRO M MAKING A BALD STATEMENT ABOUT THE SALE OF CROP BY SHRI SHEES H RAM YADAV RESULTING INTO REALIZATION OF `2.50 LAC NO DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE WAS PLACED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE US TO SUB STANTIATE THE ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 30 EXPLANATION THAT THE CROP WAS IN FACT SOLD FOR THIS AMOUNT BY SHRI SHEESH RAM YADAV. IT IS A CASE OF A VAGUE AND UNSU BSTANTIATED EXPLANATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DIRECT DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCE FOR SALE OF CROP EXCEPT A CERTIFICATE FROM SARPANCH WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THIS LOAN. T HIS ADDITION IS RESTORED. LOAN OF `4 LAC FROM SMT. ANITA YADAV . 47. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A LOAN OF `4 LAC BY TWO CHEQUES OF `2 LAC EACH DATED 2.12.2006 AND 4.12 .2006 FROM SMT. ANITA YADAV. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT O F SMT. ANITA YADAV IT WAS NOTICED THAT A SUM OF `4 LAC WAS DEPO SITED IN CASH IN HER BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF WHICH THIS LOAN WAS CL AIMED TO HAVE BEEN ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SOURCE OF AMOUN T IN THE HANDS OF SMT. ANITA YADAV WAS STATED TO BE A GIFT R ECEIVED BY HER IN CASH FROM SHRI RAM KISHAN YADAV. SHRI RAM KISHA N YADAV EXECUTED AN AGREEMENT ON 3.11.2006 AND RECEIVED A SUM OF `5.15 LAC AS ADVANCE AGAINST THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDE RATION OF `31.15 LAC. IT WAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF ADVANC E WAS FORFEITED BY HIM AS THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT HONOURED. THIS DEF INITIVE ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 31 EXPLANATION SO TENDERED WAS REJECTED BY THE AO WITH OUT GIVING ANY COGENT REASON. HE DID NOT CONSIDER IT EXPEDIENT TO EXAMINE SHRI RAM KUMAR FROM WHOM SHRI RAM KISHAN YADAV CLAI MED TO HAVE RECEIVED A SUM OF `5.15 LAC AS ADVANCE FOR THE SALE OF LAND WHICH AGREEMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY NOT HONOURED AND T HE ADVANCE WAS FORFEITED. SINCE THE SPECIFIC AND SUBS TANTIATED EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN WHIMSICA LLY REJECTED WITHOUT ANY REASON OR RHYME WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THIS ADDITION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. LOAN OF `2 LAC FROM SHRI VIDYANAND . 48. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A LOAN OF `2 LAC THROUGH FIVE DEMAND DRAFTS WORTH `40 000/- EACH ON 2.1.2007. THE SOURCE OF THIS AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF SHRI VIDY ANAND WAS STATED TO BE RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE OF CROP. IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUCH AS FORM NO. J ETC. THE A O REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE CERTIFICATE OF SARPANCH IN SUPPORT OF THE REALIZATION FROM THE SALE OF CROP. HE THEREFORE MADE THE ADD ITION WHICH CAME TO BE DELETED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 32 49. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT SHRI VIDYAN AND DEPOSITED A SUM OF `2 LAC IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AROUND A WEEK BEF ORE ISSUING DEMAND DRAFTS TO THE ASSESSEE WORTH `2 LAC. THE ON LY EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS SALE OF CROP WHICH WAS NOT EVIDENCED BY ANY DIRECT DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE. IT IS AGAIN A CASE OF UNSUBSTANTIATED EXPLANATION. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELET ING THIS ADDITION. THE ORDER OF THE AO IS RESTORED ON THIS ISSUE. LOAN OF `2 LAC FROM SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR . 50. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A LOAN OF `2 LAC FROM SHRI ASHOK KUMAR THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT DATED 1.1.200 7. ON A PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THIS PERSON IT WAS SEEN THAT EQUAL AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH ON 26.12.2006. THE SO URCE OF THE AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF SHRI ASHOK KUMAR WAS STATED TO BE A CASH LOAN OF `2 LAC TAKEN BY HIM FROM SHRI UDAI SINGH W HO HAD SOLD HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 15.12.2006 . THE AO MADE THE ADDITION WHICH WAS DELETED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 33 51. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE MADE A SPECIFIC AND SUBSTANTIATED EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF MONEY IN THE HANDS OF HIS CREDITOR. THE AO DID N OT VENTURE TO VERIFY THIS DEFINITE EXPLANATION GIVEN BEFORE HIM. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRADICTION OF THE DEFINITE AND SUBSTANTIA TED EXPLANATION GIVEN IN SUPPORT OF THE LOAN WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THIS ADDITION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 52. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.660/DEL/2011- M/S GOLDEN TEX 53. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINS T THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF `14 LAC MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE AC T. FACTS HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY NOTED SUPRA ABOUT THIS PARTNERSHIP F IRM WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND HAD NOT S TARTED ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR REL EVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED INTER ALIA TO HAVE RECEIVED UNSECURED LOANS AMOUNTING TO `14 LAC FROM CERTAIN PERSONS. THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WIT H THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNTS AND ACCOR DINGLY MADE ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 34 THE ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) ORDERED FOR THE DELET ION OF ADDITION IN THE SAME WAY AS DID IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNTS RECEI VED BY THE FIRM FROM TWO PARTNERS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THE REVENU E IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS DELETION OF ADDITION. 54. WE WILL TAKE UP ALL THE UNSECURED LOANS ONE BY ONE FOR EXAMINING THEIR GENUINENESS IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. LOAN OF `50 000/- FROM SHRI RAJ KUMAR 55. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE ARRANGED INTEREST FREE LOAN OF `50 000/- FROM SHRI RAJ KUMAR WHICH WAS RECEIVED B Y MEANS OF CHEQUE ON 25.11.2006. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOU NT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE SH. RA J KUMAR DEPOSITED CASH OF `1 60 000/- ON 8.10.2006 IN HIS B ANK ACCOUNT AND AFTER DEPOSITING THIS AMOUNT HE WITHDREW THE S AME MONEY FROM THE BANK ON DIFFERENT DATES AS TABULATED IN PA RA 2.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SHRI RAJ KUMAR DURING THE COURS E OF HIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE AO STATED THAT `1.60 LAC WAS GIVEN BY HIS FATHER FOR THE PURPOSES OF REPAIRING THE HOUSE. OUT OF THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED HE REPAID A LOAN OF ``60 000/- TO ONE SHRI NARPAL BY CHEQUE AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS WITHDRA WN BY HIM ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 35 FOR THE PURPOSES OF REPAIRING THE HOUSE EXCEPT `40 000/- WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN BY HIM ON 4.11.2006 FOR ADVANCING A L OAN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR `50 000/- ALONG WITH CERTAIN OTHER CAS H AVAILABLE WITH HIM. NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES EXPLAN ATION THE AO MADE ADDITION WHICH WAS DELETED IN THE FIRST APPEAL . 56. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT A SUM OF `1.60 LAC WAS DEPOSITED BY SHRI RAJ KUMAR IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM FROM HIS FATHE R FOR REPAIRING THE HOUSE. CERTAIN CASH WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE THROUGH ATM. IT IS OUT OF THIS `1.60 LAC THAT SH RI RAJ KUMAR GAVE A SUM OF `40 000/- TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM ALONG WITH A FURTHER AMOUNT AVAILABLE WITH HIM MAKING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION AT `50 000/-. THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE RECEIPT OF THIS SUM FROM FATHER FOR REPAIR. ONCE THE SOURCE OF CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITOR IS ACCEPTED OUT OF WH ICH SOME AMOUNT WAS GIVEN AS LOAN THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF QUESTIONING THE GENUINENESS OF LOAN GIVEN. ADVERTIN G TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE WE FIND THAT SINCE THE AO ACCE PTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY SHRI RAJ KUMAR ABOUT THE RECEI PT OF `1.60 LAC ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 36 FROM HIS FATHER THERE CAN BE NO REASON TO DISCREDI T THE LOAN GIVEN BY HIM OUT OF THIS MONEY AVAILABLE WITH HIM. WE T HEREFORE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN DELETING THIS ADDITION . LOAN OF `2.50 LAC BY SHRI RAJ SINGH YADAV 57. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED INTEREST FREE LOAN FROM SHRI RAJ SINGH YADAV THROUGH CHEQUE ON 24.11.2 006. THE SOURCE OF LOAN WAS GIVEN TO BE REALIZATION FROM THE SALE OF CROP. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUPPORTI NG THE CLAIM OF SALE OF CROP THE AO MADE ADDITION FOR THIS SUM WHICH WAS DELETED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 58. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT CA SH OF `2.50 LAC WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SH. RAJ SINGH YADAV IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF CHEQUE TO THE AS SESSEE FOR EQUAL SUM. IN THE NAME OF THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT A GENERAL UNSUBSTANTIATED EXPLAN ATION WAS GIVEN ABOUT THE RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF CROP. NO REL IABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF FORM-J ETC. WA S FILED TO ESTABLISH THE RECEIPT FROM THE SALE OF CROP. IN OU R CONSIDERED ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 37 OPINION THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GE NUINENESS OF THE CREDIT IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE IMPUGNED O RDER ON THIS ISSUE IS OVERTUNED AND THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED. LOAN OF `6 LAC FROM SHRI HEM SINGH . 59. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED INTEREST FREE LOAN OF `6 LAC BY MEANS OF FOUR DEMAND DRAFTS AMOUNTING TO `1.5 LAC ` 2 LAC `1.5 LAC AND `1 LAC DATED 2.1.2007 17.1.2007 17.1.2007 AND 20.2.2007 RESPECTIVELY. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK AC COUNT OF SHRI HEM SINGH IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT EQUAL AMO UNTS OF CASH WERE DEPOSITED IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF D EMAND DRAFTS TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT WAS THE SALE OF CROP. THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH TH E ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AND MADE THE ADDITION WHICH WAS DELETE D IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 60. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E ONLY EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RECEIPT OF LO AN FROM SHRI HEM SINGH WAS THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. NO DIRECT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUCH AS J-FORM WAS PRODUCED EI THER BEFORE ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 38 THE AO OR BEFORE US TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CROP WA S IN FACT SOLD WHICH FETCHED PROCEEDS WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RELIABLE CORROBORAT ED EXPLANATION WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A ) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THIS ADDITION. THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE IS OVERTURNED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS RESTORED. LOAN OF `5 LAC FROM SMT. SUNITA YADAV . 61. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED LOAN OF ` 5 LAC FROM SMT. SUNITA YADAV WHO HAPPENS TO BE THE WIFE OF SH . RAJAN KUMAR YADVA ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FI RM. THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT OF LOAN WAS STATED TO BE GIFT RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER SHRI PHUL CHAND YADAV. THE AO DID NOT A CCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) ORDERED FOR THE DELETION OF ADDITION. 62. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT SHRI PHUL CHAND FATHER OF SMT. SUNITA YADAV EXECUTED A GIFT DEED A COPY O F WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 193 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT HAS BE EN DEPOSED IN ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 39 THIS GIFT DEED THAT SHRI PHUL CHAND GAVE A GIFT TO HIS DAUGHTER BY MEANS OF CHEQUE AND THE SOURCE OF THE GIFT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED TO BE OUT OF HIS PROPERTY OF WHICH HE WAS THE ABSOLU TE OWNER. THE AO DID NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE SPECIFIC EXPLANATI ON GIVEN TO HIM ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT. NEITHER SHRI PHUL CHAND YADAV WAS SUMMONED FOR EXAMINATION NOR ANY OTHER INQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED TO DISBELIEVE THE SPECIFIC AND AUTHENTICA TED EXPLANATION ABOUT THE GIFT MADE BY A FATHER TO HIS DAUGHTER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDED IN DISCHARGING THE PRIMARY O NUS CAST UPON HIM WITH REGARD TO THIS LOAN TRANSACTION. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS UPHELD ON THIS SCORE. 63. THIS GROUND IN TOTALITY IS THEREFORE PARTL Y ALLOWED. 64. THE OTHER TWO GROUNDS ARE AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF `26 LAC AND `30.84 LAC MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF SHRI RAJNAN KUMAR YADAV AND SHRI NIHAL SINGH THE PARTN ERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. WE HAVE SEPARATELY DEALT WITH THE A PPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO PARTNERS IN WHO SE HANDS THE ITA NOS.660 TO 662/DEL/2011 40 ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION GIVEN IN THESE TWO APPEALS WHERE ADDITIONS WERE MA DE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS THERE IS NO NEED TO DEAL WITH TH E DELETION OF THESE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM M ADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. 65. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.11.201 4. SD/- SD/- [C.M. GARG] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 14 TH NOVEMBER 2014. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT AR ITAT NEW DELHI.