DCIT, Kanpur v. Shri Anurag Agarwal, Kanpur

ITA 694/LKW/2010 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 69423714 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAFHA5718J
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 694/LKW/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Kanpur
Respondent Shri Anurag Agarwal, Kanpur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted A
Date Of Final Hearing 16-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 16-03-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 26-11-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A LUCKNOW IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A LUCKNOW IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A LUCKNOW IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A LUCKNOW BEFORE HONBLE SHRI H.L. KARWA BEFORE HONBLE SHRI H.L. KARWA BEFORE HONBLE SHRI H.L. KARWA BEFORE HONBLE SHRI H.L. KARWA AND HONBLE SHRI N.K. SAINI AND HONBLE SHRI N.K. SAINI AND HONBLE SHRI N.K. SAINI AND HONBLE SHRI N.K. SAINI ITA NO.694/LKW/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002-03 DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 KANPUR V. SHRI ANURAG AGARWAL 9/46-A (2) BENAJHABAT ROAD KANPUR PAN:ABAPA2090H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR D.R. RESPONDENT BY: S/SHRI V. GARG AND S. SINGH O OO O R RR R D DD D E EE E R RR R PER N.K. SAINI: PER N.K. SAINI: PER N.K. SAINI: PER N.K. SAINI: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 1.9.2010 OF THE CIT(A)-I KANPUR. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL:- 1. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOU NT OF UNEXPLAINED HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.52 000/- ON A WRONG A PPRECIATION OF FACTS AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS SUBSTITUTING HIS OWN SATISFACTION IN PLACE OF A.O.'S SATISFACTION. 2. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS .1 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF MAS TER SUYUSH KHEMKA WHO IS A MINOR SON OF THE APPELLANT ON WRONG APPRECIATION OF LAW AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS A S PROVIDED U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF MR. M.K. SHUKLA F ROM WHOSE ACCOUNT THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF MASTER S UYUSH KHEMKA IS ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .23 10 000/- BEING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN ON A WRONG APPRECIATION OF LAW AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS SUBSTITUTING HIS OWN SATISFACTION IN PLACE OF A.O.'S SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED H IS ONUS AS PROVIDED U/S.68 OF THE I.T ACT. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12 40 000/- BEING THE :-2-: ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON A WRONG APPRECIATION OF LAW AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS SUBSTITUT ING HIS OWN SATISFACTION IN PLACE OF A.O.'S SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS AS PROVIDED U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT ANY INDISCREPANCY WHICH COULD INDICATE THAT THE AO'S SA TISFACTION WAS BASED ON A WRONG APPRECIATION OF FACTS. 5. IN DOING SO THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED ADDITIONAL EVI DENCES WITHOUT RECORDING PROPER REASONS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A O F THE I.T. RULES. 6. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BEING ERRONEOUS I N LAW AND ON FACTS BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANYONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED FOR DOI NG SO MAY ARISE. 2. THE ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF $ 52 000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPEN SES. 3. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S. 132(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 WAS CONDUCTED ON 1.12.2004 AT THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI AMAR NATH GUPTA GROUP OF CASES AND THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO SEARCHED. THE AS SESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 153A OF THE ACT DISCLOSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF $ 1 33 709 ON 16.6.2006. THE SAID INCOME WAS DISCLOSED FROM THE PROFESSIONAL INCOME B EING A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND FROM THE BANK INTEREST. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT $ 48 000 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE SAME AT $ 1 LAKH RESULTING AN ADDITION OF $ 52 000 TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) A ND THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BEFORE HIM:- 'THE APPELLANT LIVES WITH HIS FATHER AND MOTHER IN HIS SELF OWNED FLAT AND HAVE COMMON MESSING. THE WITHDRAWALS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS LIVING TOGETHER IS SUMMARIZED BELOW: NAME OF FAMILY RELATION WITH APPELLANT AMOUNT OF WITHDRAWAL :-3-: MEMBERS SMT. MAYAL AGARWAL MOTHER 12 000 SHRI S.S. AGARWAL FATHER 36 000 SMT. NIDHI AGARWAL WIFE 48 000 SHRI ANURAG AGARWAL APPELLANT 48 000 TOTAL (RS.) 1 44 000 THE FAMILY OF THE APPELLANT CONSISTS OF FATHER MOT HER WIFE SELF AND ONE MINOR CHILD. THE HOUSE IN WHICH THE APPELLANT IS LI VING WITH PARENTS IS VERY OLD AND OWNED BY HIS FATHER. ONE MINOR CHILD IN THE RELEVANT YEAR WAS AGED 3 YEARS. HAVING REGARDS TO THE SIZE OF THE FAMILY S TATUS COMMON MESSING ETC. TOTAL WITHDRAWAL OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS AGGREG ATING TO RS.1 44 000/- ARE QUITE SUFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE. THE LD. AO WITHO UT CONSIDERING FULL AND RELEVANT FACTS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSMENT JUR ISDICTION OF THE APPELLANT'S FATHER APPELLANT'S MOTHER AND APPELLA NT'S WIFE WERE ALSO WITH HIM THE ADDITION OF RS.52000/- MADE FOR ALLEGED LO W WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED ARBITRARY AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED'. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS WIFE CONSTITUTED $ 96 000 WHICH WAS QUITE SUFFICIENT AS AGAINST THE ESTIMATE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT $ 1 LAKH THEREFORE NO ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS WARRANTED. HE ACCORDI NGLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF $ 52 000. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF T HE ASSESSEE AT $ 1 LAKH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ESTIMATING THE ADDITION OF $ 52 000 ONLY CONSIDERED THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE ASSESSEE AT $ 48 000 AND DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE WITH DRAWAL OF $ 48 000 MADE BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES FOR THE FAMILY BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIF E WAS AT $ 96 000 WHICH APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE AGAINST THE ESTIMATE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT $ 1 LAKH BECAUSE THE SAID ESTIMATE WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 1 TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. :-4-: 7. THE NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE DELE TION OF ADDITION OF $ 1 LAKH MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE MINOR SON OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ABOVE ADDITI ON OBSERVED AS UNDER:- ON EXAMINATION OF BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI M.K. SHUKLA WITH PEOPLES CO-OPERATIVE BANK IT IS NOTICED THAT MASTER SUYASH KHEMKA HAS ACCEPTED DEPOSIT OF RS.1 00 000/- ON 09.06.2001. MASTER SUYA SH KHEMKA IS MINOR SON OF SHRI ANURAG AGARWAL. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHRI M. K. SHUKLA. INQUIRIE S REVEAL THAT SHRI M. K. SHUKLA IS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS. STATU TORY NOTICES WERE ALSO REMAINED UNSERVED. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THIS DEPOSIT THEREFORE A SUM OF RS.1 0 0 000/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT S IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS HIS SON IS MINOR. 9. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) ARE REPRODUCED VERBATIM AS UNDER:- 'IN SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT 1961 TAKEN UP IN THE CASE OF M/S SUYASH KHEMKA (AGARWAL) BENEFICIARY TRUST FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 BY THE DY. C.I.T. KA NPUR THE SAID ENTRY WAS ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF SUYASH AGARWAL BENEF ICIARY TRUST VIDE ORDER PASSED U/S 147/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 DATED 23.05. 2008. A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS ATTACHED FOR YOUR HONOUR'S READY REFERENCE. THE SAID SUYASH AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUS T HAS ACCEPTED THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.300000/- CONSISTING OF RS.10000 0/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI M. K. SHUKLA AND RS.200000/- RECEIVED FROM OTHER PE RSONS. SINCE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT ENTRY OF RS .100000/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI M. K. SHUKLA HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED IN THE HAN DS OF M/S SUYASH AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST THEREFORE THE ADDITION FOR THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT BEING THE FATHER OF SUYASH AGARWAL (SU YASH KHEMKA) IS NEITHER LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE NOR JUSTIFIED'. :-5-: 10. THE LD. CIT(A) DEALT WITH THE ISSUE VIDE PARA 23 OF HIS ORDER AND HELD AS UNDER:- 23. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND DOCUMENTS SUBM ITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT DOUBLE ADDITION FOR THE SAME IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT HAS PAID THE TAXES ON RS.3 00 000/- ALONG WITH THE INTEREST AS PER EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE COUNSEL RS.3 LAKHS CONSISTS OF RS.1 LAKH THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1 00 000/- AFTER VERIFICATION AT HIS END ALSO. THUS GROUND NO. III(B) OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 11. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 12. THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHILE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 13. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTI ES IT APPEARS THAT THE SAME ENTRY OF $ 3 LAKHS WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF M/S SUYASH KHEMKA (AGARWAL) BENEFICIARY TRUST VIDE ORDER DATED 23.5.2008 PASSED U/S. 147/14 3(3) OF THE ACT. THE SAID TRUST HAS ACCEPTED THE ADDITION OF $ 3 LAKHS WHICH INCLUDED THE IMPUGNED CREDIT ENTRY OF $ 1 LAKH RECEIVED FROM SHRI M. K. SHUKLA. SINCE THE LD. CIT (A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE ABOVE FACT AND THEREAFTER DELETE THE ADD ITION AFTER VERIFICATION AT HIS END IN OUR OPINION THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT RE QUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART BECAUSE THE SAME ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE TWICE. FU RTHERMORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PLAINLY DELETED THE ADDITION RATHER DIRECTED THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ONLY IF HE IS SATIS FIED THEN THE ADDITION IS TO BE DELETED. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERI T IN THIS GROUND OF DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 2 TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT I S DISMISSED. 14. VIDE GROUNDS NO.3 AND 4 THE DEPARTMENT HAS CONTEST ED THE DELETION OF ADDITIONS OF $ 23 10 000 AND $ 12 40 000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAI NED LOANS FROM FAMILY MEMBERS AND OTHERS AND UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT RESPECTIVELY. 15. THE ABOVE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- UNEXPLAINED LOAN THERE APPEAR FOLLOWING CASH CREDITS IN ASSESSEE'S A CCOUNTS: :-6-: 1. AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES - RS.60 000/- 2. ANKUR AGARWAL (HUF) - RS.7 50 000/- 3. NIDHI AGARWAL - RS.12 00 000/- 4. SEEMA JAIN - RS.3 00 000/- TOTAL - RS.23 10 000/- DESPITE AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND THE IDENT ITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. AS SUCH THE ABOV E AMOUNT OF RS.23 10 000/- IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED/UNPROVED C ASH CREDIT AND WILL BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (ADDITION: RS.23 10 000) AS STATED EARLIER THERE APPEAR FOLLOWING CREDITS I N THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT NO.31531048 OF THE ASSESSEE WITH STANDARD C HARTERED GRINDLAYS BANK M.G. ROAD KANPUR:- DATE AMOUNT (RS) 10.4.2001 4 50 000/- 20.4.2001 50 000/- 23.4.2001 1 00 000/- 09.7.2001 10 000/- 10.7.2001 6 00 000/- 26.7.2001 30 000/- TOTAL 12 40 000/- 16. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM AS MENTIONED IN PARA 25 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER READ AS UNDER:- 'YOUR HONOUR MAY KINDLY NOTE FROM THE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL SUMMARIZED :-7-: HERE IN BEFORE THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE L D. A. O. ARE FOR ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ENTRY AND THE EXPLANATION A LONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ON RECORD: NAME OF THE CREDITOR P.A.NO. AMOUNT (RS.) EVIDENCE FILED NATURE OF ENTRY ANKUR AGARWAL (HUF) 111/30 NEHRU NAGAR KANPUR AAFHA 5718J 750000/- CONFIRMATION & BANK STATEMENT INTEREST FREE LOAN NIDHI AGARWAL 12311-F KALPI ROAD KANPUR AAQPG 9653H 1200000/- -DO- -DO- SEEMA JAIN 2A184 AZAD NAGAR KANPUR ACAPJ 1794N 300000.00 -DO- -DO- A.R. SONS SARAF 43/50 CHOWK SARAFA KANPUR AAXP A 2919N 500000/ 500000/ 500000/ 500000/- -- - 4 50 000/- (10.04.01 50 000/- (20.04.01) CONFIRMATION REPAY MENT OF LOAN GIVEN IN EARLIER YEAR. AVINASH CHAND JAIN 34/99 HATA SAWAI SINGH CHAOK KANPUR AABFA 9037G 100000/- (23.04.01) CONFIRMATION & BANK STATEMENT - DO- :-8-: YOG PETRO PVT. LTD. 123/1F KALPI ROAD KANPUR. AAACY 0486D 40.000/ 40.000/ 40.000/ 40.000/- -- - 10 000/- (09.07.01) 30000/- (26.07.01) -DO- -DO- AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES 110/30 NEHRU NAGAR KANPUR AAEF A 9097M 60000/- CONFIRMATION REPAY MENT OF LOAN GIVEN ON 14.02.2 002 [SEARCH U/S 132(1) ON 01.12.2004 ASSESSED WITH THE SAME A.O.] FROM THE PERUSAL OF ABOVE CHART IT WILL BE NOTED T HAT PARTIES AT SERIAL NO.1 2 6 AND 7 WERE SEARCHED CASES AND ASSESSED WITH TH E SAME A.O. HENCE VERIFICATION OF CREDIT ENTRIES/ TRANSACTIONS WAS VE RY EASY AND AVAILABLE FROM THE RECORDS OF RESPECTIVE CREDITORS WITH THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. EVEN THESE CREDIT ENTRIES WERE NOT CROSS VERIFIED FROM THE ASS ESSMENT RECORD OF RESPECTIVE CREDITOR AND ARBITRARILY HUGE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. ALL THE CREDITORS ARE TAX PAYER. THEIR IDENTITY CREDIT WOR THINESS AND GENUINENITY OF TRANSACTION WAS VERIFIABLE FROM THE CONFIRMATIONS A ND BALANCE SHEET ETC. AVAILABLE ON RECORD WITH THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER . THE ONUS CAST UPON THE APPELLANT STOOD DISCHARGE AND VERIFICATION IF ANY REQUIRED WAS NOT DONE BY THE LD. A O. THEREFORE THE INFERENCES DRAWN ARE BASED MERELY ON PRESUMPTION CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. BEFORE THE A SSESSMENT WAS CONCLUDED ON 24.08.2007 THE LD AO EVEN DID NOT ASK THE APPELLANT FOR ANY INFORMATION OR DETAIL WITH RESPECT TO THE ABOVE PAR TIES. THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO ARE THEREFORE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED UN WARRANTED AND DESERVE TO BE DELETED'. 17. THE LD. CIT(A) FORWARDED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASKED THE REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER GATHERED INFORMATIONS U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT AND REPORTED AS UNDER:- :-9-: 'ON VERIFICATION ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN AGGR EGATING TO RS.23 10 000/- WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING PARTIES:- 1. M/S ANKUR AGARWAL HUF RS.750000/- 2. SMT. NIDHI AGARWAL RS.1200000/- 3. SMT. SEEMA JAIN RS.300000/- 4. M/S AGARWAL ASSOCIATES RS.60000/- ON VERIFICATION IT IS NOTICED THAT UNEXPLAINED CRE DITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.12 40 000/- REPRESENTS FOLLOWING DETAILS OF ENTRIES:- I. RS.4 50 000/- + RS.50 000/- FROM M/S A.R.SONS & SAR RAF II. RS.1 00 000/- FROM SHRI AVINASH CHAND JAIN III. RS.30 000/- + RS.10 000/- FROM M/S YOG PETRO PVT. L TD. IV. RS.6 00 000/- TRANSFER ENTRY FROM BANK OF BARODA. IN SUPPORT OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATIONS FROM PARTIES A LONG WITH THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS. THESE PARTIES ARE M/S ANKUR AGARWAL HUF SMT. NIDHI AGARWAL SMT. SEEMA JAIN M/S A.R. SONS & SARRAF SHRI AVINAS H CHAND JAIN AND M/S YOG PETRO PVT. LTD. INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF INCOM E TAX ACT 1961 HAS BEEN GATHERED FROM THE PARTIES WHICH ARE NOT FAMILY MEMB ERS OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP VIZ. M/S ANKUR AGARWRAL HUF SMT. SEEMA JAIN SHRI AVINASH CHAND JAIN AND M/S A.R. SONS & SARRAF THE REQUIRED CONFIRMATION WI TH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES HAS BEEN OBTAINED IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6 ) OF INCOME TAX ACT. 1961.' 18. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DELETED THE ADDITI ON OF $ 29.50 LAKHS AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTION OF TRAN SFER OF $ 6 LAKHS BY THE ASSESSEE FROM BANK OF BARODA TO STANDARD CHARTERED GRINDLAYS BANK ACCOUNT. ON THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED THE TRAN SACTION AND FOUND IT CORRECT. THEREFORE THE SAID ADDITION WAS ALSO DELETED. 19. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. :-10-: 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT ACCEPTED THE AMOUNT OF LOANS AS WELL AS THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO BE GENUINE AND ALSO GOT INFORMATION U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT FROM THE DEPOSITORS OF THE LOANS AND CREDITS. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF WAS SATISFIED THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO MAKE THE ADDITI ON. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FIND INGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. CONSEQUENTLY WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THESE GROU NDS OF APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS NO.3 AND 4 TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. 21. GROUND NO. 5 RELATES TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES. HOWEVER DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOTHING WAS POINTED OUT HOW A ND IN WHAT MANNER THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PARTICULARLY WHEN THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT. THEREFORE THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 5 TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 22. GROUNDS NO.6 AND 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE SO DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON OUR PART. 23. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMIS SED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.3.2011 ) SD/- SD/- [H. L. KARWA] [ N. K. SAINI] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:17.3.2011 JJ:1603 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR