Manish Singh, Kanpur v. DCIT, Lucknow

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.80(LKW.)/2011 A.Y. : 2005-06 SHRI MANISH SINGH VS. THE DY.CIT RANGE-V C-59 SECTOR A MAHANAGAR LUCKNOW. LUCKNOW. PRESENT ADDRESS- 183/1 JUHI LAL COLONY KANPUR-208014 PAN AUNPS0031N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.P. MISHRA ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K.BAJAJ SR.D.R. O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II LUCKNOW DATED 16.12.2010 RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE AGITATED IN GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS.18 335 (WRONGLY WRITTEN RS.18 355). 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM SALE AND PURCHASE OF WEIGHING MACHINES AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.3.2006 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1 02 200 WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T 1961. LATER ON THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE ESTIMATED PROFIT AND LOSS 2 ACCOUNT AND ADMITTED THAT HIS CASE FALLS IN NO ACCO UNT CATEGORY. THEREFORE THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MA INTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS EXPENSES VOUCHERS ETC. AND HENCE THE ASS ESSEES INCOME COULD NOT BE COMPUTED CORRECTLY. THE AO ESTIMATED THE SALES O F THE ASSESSEE AT RS.8 50 000 IN PLACE OF RS.8 07 275 AND APPLIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 30.25% AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ALSO NO TICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S. ESS AE TERAOKA LTD. NO.377/22 6 TH CROSS WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE-27 FOR AMOUNT PAID/C REDITED OF RS.18 335 ON WHICH THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT RS.1 008. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.18 335 BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER SHOWN HIS INCOME FOR THE AFORESAID AMOUNT IN HIS COMPUTATION OF INCOME NOR IN THE ESTIMATED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE SUM OF RS.18 335 AS PERFORMANCE IN CENTIVE FROM M/S.ESSAE TERAOKA LTD. FOR ACHIEVING CERTAIN TARGETS IN SALE S AND THE SAID RECEIPT WAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN BY EST IMATE AT RS.2 44 187 WHICH WAS 30.25% OF THE TURNOVER AND EVEN IF BROKER AGE OF RS.18 335 WAS SEPARATED FROM THE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN AT RS.2 44 18 7 THE GROSS PROFIT (SO REDUCED) AMOUNTS TO RS.2 25 852 WHICH WAS ABOUT 28 % AND QUITE REASONABLE AS TRADING PROFIT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 12.65% WHICH WAS MORE THAN 5% AND MANDATED AS ACCEPTABLE IN NO ACCOUNT CASES OF RETAIL BUSINESS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF OF THE I.T.ACT HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS.18 3 35 DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 5. THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE COMMISSION/BROKERAGE INCOME HAD N OT BEEN FOUND 3 INCLUDED IN THE ESTIMATED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED CREDIT OF THE TDS OF CORRESPONDING INCOME HENCE THIS INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF TH E AO FOR MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.18 335. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 44AF OF THE I.T.ACT SINCE THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS THAN THE TURNOVER PRESCRIBED FOR MAINTAIN ING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 44AF OF THE I.T. ACT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW THE PROFIT OF 5% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER. HOWEVER A NET PROFIT RATE OF 12.65 % HAD BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS MUCH MORE THAN THE PRESCRIBED R ATE OF NET PROFIT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SALES INCENTIVE WAS PART AND PARCEL OF THE TURNOVER AND WHEN THE AO HIMSELF ESTIMATED THE TURNOVER AND APPLIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO MAKE SEPARATE ADDITI ON FOR THE SALES INCENTIVE. 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD.D.R.SUPPORTED T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAI NTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. FOR THAT REASON THE AO ESTIMATED THE SA LES OF THE ASSESSEE AND 4 APPLIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE WHICH WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ESTIMATED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A SUM OF RS.18 335 WAS RECEIVED AS PERFORMANCE INCE NTIVE RELATING TO THE SALES TARGETS HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED AT ANY STAGE. S INCE THE SALES INCENTIVE IS A PART OF THE TURNOVER AND THE AO ESTIMATED THE TURNO VER THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO MAKE SEPARATE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF P ERFORMANCE INCENTIVE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTE R I DELETE THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A). 9. THE NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE C ONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.50 000 IN RESPECT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM SHRI SHAILESH KUMAR SINGH BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT HE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTI FY THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CASH DEPOSITS TH E ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED CASH GIFTS OF RS.40 000 AND RS.50 000 FROM HIS FATHER AND BROTHER RESPECTIVELY AND THE BALANCE OF RS.56 000 W AS THE INTEREST FREE LOAN FROM FOUR PERSONS. AS REGARDS TO THE CASH GIFT OF RS.50 000 FROM BROTHER SHRI SHAILESH KUMAR SINGH THE ASSESSEE FURNSIHED AFFIDAVIT OF THE DONOR DATED 8.12.2007 MENTIONING HIS PAN AND ALSO ENCLOS ED COPY OF HIS BROTHERS FORM NO.16. THE AO NOTICED THAT NO GIFT D EED HAS BEEN PREPARED AT THE TIME OF GIFT AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE DONOR W AS PREPARED ON 8.12.2007 WHICH DID NOT HAVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DONEE. FRO M THE FORM NO.16 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYER OF THE DONOR THE AO NOTICED THAT HIS GROSS SALARY IN THE RELEVANT PERIOD WAS RS.1 76 265 AGAINST WHICH T HE DEPOSITS FOR REBATE UNDER CHAPTER VIII-A WERE RS.80 395. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE 5 DONOR WAS NOT IN A CAPACITY TO MAKE A GIFT OF RS.5 0 000 IN CASH BESIDES MEETING OUT HIS FAMILY EXPENSES OUT OF KNOWN SOURCE S OF INCOME. THE AO ACCEPTED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR WAS PROVED. HOWEVER HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TR ANSACTION AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.50 000. 11. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD.CIT(A ) AND SUBMITTED THAT HIS REAL BROTHER HAD GIVEN THE GIFT OUT OF HIS SAV INGS FROM SALARY INCOME FOR WHICH PROOF HAD BEEN FILED. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE DONOR HAD MERELY A FAMILY OF SELF HIS WIFE AND A MINOR SON AND HE H AD BEEN PROVIDED FREE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY AS WELL AS FREE ELECTRIC AND W ATER SUPPLY FROM HIS EMPLOYER. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CAS E LAWS: (I) CIT VS. TAJ BOREWELLS (2007) 291 ITR 232 (MAD. ) (II) TAM TAM PEDDA GURUVA REDDY VS.JOINT CIT(ASSES SMENTS) AND ANOTHER (2007) 291 ITR 44(KARNATAKA). 12. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE DONOR IN HIS AFFIDAVIT DATED 8 .12.2007 HAS NOT MENTIONED THE DATES OF CASH GIFTS TOTALLING TO RS.50 000 GIV EN TO HIS BROTHER. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE AFFIDAVIT IT WAS ONLY MENTIONE D THAT CASH GIFTS WERE GIVEN DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 WHICH SHOW S THAT THE DONOR WAS NOT AWARE ON WHICH DATES AND WHAT AMOUNTS WERE GIVEN O N A PARTICULAR OCCASION. THUS THE GENUINENESS OF GIFTS REMAINED T O BE PROVED. ACCORDING TO HIM THE ENTRIES REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT W ERE IN THE NATURE OF CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THERE WERE DISCREPANCI ES IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE IT WAS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF GIF T. HE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 6 NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE GIFT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS REAL BROTHER WHO DISCLOSE D HIS SOURCES OF EARNING THE INCOME AND WAS ASSESSED TO THE INCOME-TAX REGU LARLY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DONOR FURNISHED THE AFFIDAVIT TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT GIFT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFEC TION AND ALSO DISCLOSED HIS PAN IN THE SAID AFFIDAVIT DATED 8.12.2007. THEREFOR E THE ASSESSEE PROVED THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS AS WELL AS GENUINEN ESS OF THE GIFT SO THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO MAKE THE ADDITION. 14. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD.D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 15. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVE D THE GIFT OF RS.50 000 FROM HIS REAL BROTHER WHO WAS HAVING THE SALARY INCOME OF RS.1 76 265 AND WAS PROVIDED RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION BY HIS EMPLOYER. T HE AO POINTED OUT THAT AGAINST THE INCOME OF RS.1 76 265 THE DONOR DEPOSI TED A SUM OF RS.80 395 FOR REBATE UNDER CHAPTER VIII-A. THEREFORE THE DON OR WAS STILL HAVING RS.95 870 AS SAVINGS FROM HIS SALARY AND HE HAD A S MALL FAMILY OF SELF HIS WIFE AND A MINOR SON SO IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION OF GIVING GIFT OF RS.50 000 TO HIS REAL BROTHER PARTI CULARLY WHEN THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT IN EARLIER YEAR S ALSO THE DONOR WAS NOT HAVING ANY SAVINGS FROM HIS SALARY INCOME. THE AO A CCEPTED THAT THE 7 IDENTITY OF THE DONOR WAS PROVED BUT DOUBTED THE C REDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION IN SPITE OF THE FACT THA T THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF FORM NO.16 WHICH REVEALED THAT THE GROSS S ALARY OF THE DONOR WAS RS.1 76 265 AND THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THE DONOR WAS PROVIDED FREE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY AS WELL AS FREE ELECTRIC AND WATER SUPPLY FROM HIS EMPLOYER HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED. CONSIDERING TH E TOTALITY OF THE FACTS I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE PROVED THE IDENTIT Y OF THE DONOR AS WELL AS CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION SO THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS.50 000 RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE AS A GIFT FROM HIS REAL BROTHER. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MAT TER THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE ON THIS ISSUE AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE GIFT AS GENUINE. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS DELETED. 16. GROUNDS NO.4 5 AND 6 RELATE TO THE CONFIRMATIO N OF ADDITION OF RS.56 000 WHICH WAS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF I NTEREST FREE LOANS OF RS.15 000 RS.15 000 RS.11 000 AND RS.15 000 RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI GOVIND SINGH SHRI INDERESH SINGH SMT.R EKHA SINGH AND SHRI S.N.SINGH. 17. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.15 000 FROM SHRI GOVIND SINGH HIS COU SIN AND FILED THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.12.2007 OF SHRI GOVIND SINGH S ON OF SHRI NIHAL SINGH. THE AO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED PHOT OCOPY OF RATION CARD OF NIHAL SINGH FATHER OF SHRI GOVIND SINGH. IN THE SA ID PHOTO COPY IN THE NAME OF FAMILY MEMBERS A NAME KRISHNA GOVIND AG ED 18 YEARS WAS MENTIONED INSTEAD OF GOVIND SINGH. THEREFORE THE I DENTITY WAS NOT PROVED. AS REGARDS TO THE ANOTHER LOAN OF RS.15 000 RECEIVE D FROM SHRI INDEREASH 8 SINGH REAL BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE AN AFFIDAVIT D ATED 10.12.2007 OF THE SAID PERSON WAS FILED ALONGWITH PHOTO COPY OF RATION CAR D AND COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER STATING THEREIN THE MONTHLY SALAR Y OF LENDER. THE AO POINTED OUT THAT IN THE COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER OF SHRI INDEREASH SINGH HIS SALARY WAS MERELY RS.2 950 PER MONTH. HE ALSO P OINTED OUT THAT THE SPELLING OF THE LOANER IS INDEREASH SINGH IN THE DOCUMENT FILED WHILE IN THE AFFIDAVIT IT WAS INDRAEASH SINGH AND IN THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IT IS MENTIONED AS INDRESH SINGH. HE WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT THE IDENTITY AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER WAS NOT PROVED. REG ARDING INTEREST-FREE LOAN OF RS.11 000 FROM SMT.REKHA SINGH SISTER OF THE AS SESSEE AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.12.2007 WAS FURNISHED. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAID LOAN BY STATING THAT THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT PREPARED ON THE DATE O F THE LOAN I.E. 10.6.2004 AND THAT SHE WAS SIMPLY A HOUSE-WIFE AND THE ASSESS EE ALSO MADE A PAYMENT OF RS.8 000 TO HER ON 1.12.2004. REGARDING INTEREST FREE CASH LOAN OF RS.15 000 FROM SHRI S.N.SINGH BROTHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.12.2007 OF SHRI S.N.SINGH WAS FURNISHED. T HE AO OBSERVED THAT THE SAID AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT PREPARED ON THE DATE WH EN LOAN WAS GIVEN AND IN THE AFFIDAVIT IT WAS STATED THAT HE WAS A TEACHER I N ADITYA BIRLA PUBLIC SCHOOL RENUKOOT BUT DATE OF GIVING ALLEGED LOAN W AS NOT MENTIONED. THE AO ALSO DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE SAID LOAN AS DISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF RS.56 000 WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AFORESAID FOUR LOANS. 18. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD.CIT(A ) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS WERE TAKEN AS INTEREST-FREE CASH LOANS AND THAT THE AO MADE THOSE ADDITIONS ON THE REASONS THAT THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THOSE LOANS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. IT WAS 9 STATED THAT ALL THE LENDERS WERE CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT SHRI GOVIND SINGH SHRI INDEREASH SINGH AND SHRI S.N.SIN GH WERE DERIVING BELOW TAXABLE INCOME WHILE SMT. REKHJA SINGH HAD G IVEN THE LOAN OUT OF HER STRIDHAN. 19. THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE AFORESAID CASH LOANS HAD BEEN DE POSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HENCE THE ENTRIES REFLECTE D IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE IN THE NATURE OF CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D THERE WERE CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOANS AND ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS. HE ACC ORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL 20. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LENDERS ARE CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD GIVEN THE LOANS O UT OF THEIR SAVINGS. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE AFFIDAVITS ABOUT THE LENDERS AND THE AO NEVER ASKED TO PRODUCE THOSE LENDERS IN PERSON THEREFORE IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM. 21. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD.D.R. REITERATE D THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 22. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED INTEREST FREE LOANS 10 OF RS.15 000 RS.15 000 . RS.11 000 AND RS.15 000 F ROM HIS COUSIN SHRI GOVIND SINGH REAL BROTHER SHRI INDEREASH SINGH RE AL SISTER SMT.REKHA SINGH AND REAL BROTHER-IN-LAW SHRI S.N.SINGH RESPE CTIVELY THE ASSESSEE FILED PHOTO COPY OF RATION CARDS AND THE AFFIDAVITS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THOSE PERSONS AND THE AO NEVER ASKED THE ASSESSEE T O PRODUCE THOSE PERSONS. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE IDENTITY OF T HE LENDERS WAS NOT PROVED. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED APPO INTMENT LETTER OF SHRI INDEREASH SINGH WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT HIS MONTHLY SALARY WAS RS.2 950 PER MONTH AND IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI S .N.SINGH IT WAS STATED THAT HE WAS A TEACHER IN ADITYA BIRLA PUBLIC SCHOOL REN UKOOT. AS REGARDS TO THE LOAN FROM HIS SISTER SMT.REKHA SINGH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE LOAN WAS OUT OF HER STRIDHAN. IT THEREFORE APPEAR S THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE LOAN FROM HIS CLOSE RELATIVES AND DISCLOSED ALL THE PARTICULARS TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT GENUINE LOANS WERE TAKEN. THEREFO RE CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM HIS CLOSE RELATIVES IN THE FORM OF INTEREST FREE LOANS I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE HAD CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A O. I THEREFORE DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 23. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.2 .2011. (N.K.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER FEBRUARY 23RD 2011. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R. ITAT LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA. 11