TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horised Representative of the assessee filed details and confirmation letters regarding unsecured loans on 11th Dec., 2003 and 20th Jan., 2004. From the copy of the account furnished by the assessee it was noticed that the assessee has taken unsecured loans from the following parties during financial year 2001-02: "Sl.No. Name Date Amount 1. Shri S.K. Sharma 5-5-2001 10,00,000 2. Swati Sharma 27-3-2002 2,00,000 3. Shri S.P. Sharma 23-3-2002 4,00,000 4. Tushti Sharma 23-3-2002 2,00,000 5. Shri B.D. Sharma 23-3-2002 4,00,000 6. Vimla Sharma 23-3-2002 2,00,000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that since the deposits were made in the bank account of the cash creditors prior to issuance of cheque in their respective accounts, even if these were made through banking channels, raise a strong doubt about the genuineness of these deposits and hence the creditworthiness of all the cash creditors cannot be treated as proved on record. According to him the assessee was also required to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. 6. We have examined the entire records and the evidences produced before us. The learned Authorised Representative has taken us through each and every evidence in relation to all the cash creditors separately. Before we deal with the finding of learned CIT(A), it is worthwhile to refer to the evidences which were filed before the learned AO during assessment proceedings to explain all the cash creditors. In relation to Smt. Swati Sharma the assessee has filed a confirmation by the cash creditor, a copy of which is placed at page No.5 of paper book. At p. 6 of the paper book a copy of her bank pass book is enclosed. A copy of account statement of Smt. Swati. Sharma in the books of the assessee is enclosed at p. 7 of the paper boo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee that the deposits are through cheques by mentioning that mere payment by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct nor it makes a non-genuine transaction as genuine. We are afraid, the learned CIT(A) has picked up one or two sentences of this decision without really analyzing the ratio of that decision. In that case the assessee had refused to prove identity of the cash creditors by filing reply that since the amount was received through an account payee cheque it would explain all the three requirements of s. 68 i.e., the identity of the depositors, creditworthiness of the depositor and of course the genuineness of the transaction. In these facts and the circumstances, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that by merely receiving deposits through an account payee cheque, all the three ingredients of s. 68 cannot be taken to have been proved. In that case the assessee was of the opinion that because the depositor has a bank account so his identity is proved and because he is making payment through banking channel so his capacity is proved and because the deposit is in assessee's bank account so the genuineness of the transaction is proved. The assessee had refused ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of cash creditors, the assessee is required to prove the identity and the creditworthiness of the cash creditor along with genuineness of the transaction. All of these three requirements are distinct, separate and independent and would never overlap with each other. So many a times the genuineness of a transaction is confused with the genuineness of a deposit or to make it simpler we can put in other words that when a question of gift is being negotiated it is often confused between the genuineness of the gift itself and the genuineness of giving that amount as gift. In this case, the assessee has received an amount through account payee cheque. He has filed confirmations of all the cash creditors. He has filed acknowledgements of IT returns filed for many years by all of them. It is not a case where one or two returns which were filed after the fact of cash credit was detected or was being considered by the AO. In those cases, usually the stand taken by the Department is that this was an afterthought action of the assessee. We fail to understand that when the assessee has produced overwhelming evidences in proof of the cash creditors, why the same should not be accepted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount of interest in the bank and before and after giving of these cheques, no such heavy amount were either deposited or withdrawn. In our considered opinion, these are irrelevant remarks and have nothing to establish that the transactions of cash creditors are ingenuine or that the money flowed through the assessee. It was always open to the AO to enquire into the fact as to wherefrom those payments were deposited in the bank accounts of the cash creditor. In case he found that there was some irregularity in the deposit of those cheques, then he could have got a valid point which could give him a right to further enquire from the assessee but before doing that the AO has to have some material evidence in his possession which can disprove the claim of the assessee. Learned CIT(A) has discussed much about the evidences filed on record to show that all these cash creditors are income-tax assessees. But learned CIT(A) has missed one point that from the records the identity of cash creditor is at least established. The learned CIT(A) has wrongly construed the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court given in the case of CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel (2006) 201 CTR (All) 54 : (2005) 147 Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alance sheet, confirmation letter before the AO, the AO should have verified the records of the creditor but instead he chose the easier course of ordering production of the creditor which cannot be appreciated. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh went on saying that the AO should realise the inconvenience to the assessee in such cases. The learned Authorised Representative has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Agra Bench rendered in the case of Subhash Dal Mill vs. Asstt. CIT (2002) 124 Taxman 169 (Agra)(Mag) in ITA Nos. 6609 and 6455/Del/1993/26th Nov., 2001, copy of which is enclosed at p. 51 of the paper book in which it has been held that the source of source cannot be enquired from the assessee by the AO. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 52 CTR (SC) 138 : (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) has gone to the extent by holding that when the AO issued notice to the creditor for appearance which was returned back with the endorsement "left" and the AO did not make any further attempt to examine the source of credit and the assessee had produced letter of confirmation etc. before the AO; that no adverse inference can be dr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; the other being, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the AO, as an assessing authority, ought to have been satisfied on the basis of the material on record as to the nature and source of the impugned credits. Clearly, if not, s. 68 of the Act stands rightly invoked by him, and there is no question of assessee having discharged the onus that lies on it thereunder. In fact, the two represent two facets of the same question. This satisfaction or, rather, non-satisfaction, of the AO, on which hinges the applicability of the provision of s. 68 in the given case, i.e., as per the law, is to be arrived at in a judicial manner. Its parameters stand clearly defined and spelt out by the apex Court, time and again, as it must necessarily be, for this satisfaction (or non-satisfaction) to meet the test of objectivity, which any judicial decision must if it is not to be dismissed as arbitrary. These three parameters are, 'identity' and 'capacity' of the creditor(s), and the 'genuineness' of the credit transaction(s), each of which is a separate and distinct requirement qua which the 'satisfaction' is to be arrived at, so that if there is a failure on even one score, the non-sat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion as tendered by the assessee is one which ought to have, reasonably speaking, satisfied a person of normal prudence, acting in relation to his own affairs or under like circumstances. The three ingredients afore-referred represent only the three facets from which the explanation is to be examined, which in all cases has to be viewed holistically, being in relation to a single and same transaction. The other thing that needs to be clarified is that the matter of maintainability or otherwise of the application of s. 68 in any case is based solely on the factual findings, including inferential ones, and on the touchstone of the reasonability. As held in the recent case of CIT vs. P. Mohanakala & Ors., the explanation must satisfy the test of reasonableness and that the expression "the assessee offers no explanation" means the assessee offers no proper, reasonable or acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books maintained by the assessee. And that the opinion of the AO for not accepting the explanation offered by the assessee as satisfactory is required to be based on proper appreciation of material and other attending circumstances available on record; th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... As per the copies of these banks accounts in the name of creditors, the AO noted that there were credit entries unexplained and unsubstantiated in these bank accounts just prior to the money transferred in the name of the appellant invariably in each and every case as has also been noted by the AO in para 2 of p. 3 of assessment order. The photocopies of said accounts filed during the course of appeal proceedings make it clear that the bank accounts of the respective creditors hardly show any deposits or balances, so as to prove their creditworthiness. Rather the only credit appearing just before the alleged loan transaction mostly in the span of merely one or two days from the date the loan is stated to have been given to the appellant assessee. To elaborate it further in the name of Ku. Swati Sharma, the balance was merely Rs. 26,776 brought forward in which only the interest accrual of Rs. 89 is shown on 10th July, 2001. After that there is a transfer of merely Rs. 446 on 25th July, 2001 and the subsequent entry is again of interest of Rs. 454 on 31st Dec., 2001. After this, on 27th March, 2002, the credit of Rs. 2,00,000 is shown while on the very next day, i.e., on 28th Marc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the cases, these are of below taxable amounts showing the tax as nil while in some of the acknowledgements negligible taxes are shown on such income which does not in any way prove the creditworthiness of the parties to advance the huge loans as wrongly contended. All the acknowledgements are of the returns in Saral forms with no enclosures whatsoever in support of providing the alleged unsecured loans. Rather such returns totally disprove the capacities of the creditors beyond any arena of doubts and that those parties were not creditworthy of advancing such loans as shown in the books of the appellant assessee. The learned counsel's further contention was that the AO has desired to know the source of the source of such credit whereas in view of the latest judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel (2006) 201 CTR (All) 54 : (2005) 147 Taxman 448 (All), it has been held that the assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of source or origin of origin of a deposit. I have perused the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the above case. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court have very clearly held as follows: 'Sec. 68 r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich remained unexplained what to say about the source of the source. Further, finding regarding partner introducing the money in the firm was also not relevant of the appellant's case. On the other hand, there is ample authority for the proposition that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of a certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the AO is entitled to draw the inferences that the receipts are of an assessable nature (A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC), 810). The onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. On this point, other cases relied upon are as under: 1. Mahabir Prasad Munna Lal vs. CIT (1947) 15 ITR 393 (All); 2. CIT vs. G.M. Chennabasappa (1959) 35 ITR 261 (AP); 3. Laxmidas & Co. vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 88 (Bom); 4. Badri Pd. & Sons vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 657 (All); 5. Nanak Chandra Laxman Das vs. CIT (1982) 28 CTR (All) 280 : (1983) 140 ITR 151 (All). The burden of proving the source of cash credit is on the assessee-when a cash credit entry appears in the assessee's books of account in an accounting year, the assessee has a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20 (1994) 208 ITR (Cal) 465, 470, 471. When a question arises as to whether a cash credit appearing in the books of account of an assessee has to be accepted or to be rejected and addition to be made in accordance with s. 68, the assessee is required to establish the identity of his creditor, the capacity of the creditor to advance the money and the genuineness of the transaction. In order to establish the fact of the receipt of the cash credit as required under s. 68, the assessee must prove three important conditions, viz. (1) the identity of the person (2) the genuineness of the transaction and (3) the capacity of the person giving the cash credit (Jalan Timbers vs. CIT (1997) 137 CTR (Gau) 649 : (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gau), 17. It should be borne in mind that mere filing of the income-tax file numbers of the creditors is not enough to prove the genuineness of the cash credit(s). The creditor should be identified. There should be creditworthiness. There should be genuine transaction (CIT vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (1999) 152 CTR (Cal) 17 : (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal), 824. In the facts of that case, it has been held that the finding of the Tribunal that the identity of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid creditor, which is in May, 2001 (as against the rest which is only in the last week of March, 2002), as out of the amount of retirement benefit received by him. The same, it may be clarified, does not represent source of source, but only establishes the capacity of the said creditor. In case of the credit(s) under reference, it is the creditworthiness (of the creditors) and the genuineness of the impugned transactions that stands considered as not proved. It is difficult to arrive at a different conclusion as would be evident from a bare reading of the findings of the learned CIT(A) as above. In each case, the creditor concerned is a person of small means, as established from the returns of the income furnished by him. The return of income for the preceding years is even lower, at below taxable amounts in some cases, so that the tax liability is either at nil or marginal. Further, in each case, there is no explanation as to the source from which the impugned amount stands credited in the creditor's bank account, and which is only a couple of days prior to the transaction under reference. It needs to be clarified that it is not necessary that the loan or credit must flow from cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e borrower may well have borrowed and so on, so that the assessee's borrowing would have to be reasonably proved as a genuine one. This is so as the premise of the section, and the sale criterion on which its application hinges, is the satisfaction as to the credit. of which the assessee is the beneficiary (as borne out of the books), as flowing from a genuine source. The section places no restriction on either the assessee's onus or obligation, or on the AO's right, in the matter, except that it can rightfully extend to as much as is necessary to arrive at a 'satisfaction' on the truth of the transaction. If the Revenue has material with it to show that the creditor's creditor or sub-creditor (hereinafter), i.e., from whom the funds in question are sourced on credit by the creditor, is not creditworthy, the creditworthiness, it must be appreciated, is not proved, but merely shifts to another. But this material, to be relevant, must be confronted to the assessee, and if so, the onus would shift back thereto. The matter is, thus, entirely factual and requires to be looked at with a common sense approach, guided, at all times, by the standard of, or the touchstone of, reasonableness.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayal vs. CIT, the fact that the assessee stands benefited by an amount is an evidence against it, and it is for it to prove that the sum does not represent its income. In other words, there is no estoppel against the law. As long as the AO is acting within the framework of law, his action cannot be questioned on the basis that he could have also acted differently. It is also trite that an authority may for a particular purpose could possibly rely on more than one provision, so that where he prefers one to another, his action could not be faulted on that score. In fact, s. 69 talks of undisclosed asset(s), while s. 68 of disclosed credit(s), so that it is either/or situation and not and/or one, i.e., between the applicability of the two provisions. It is only where the Revenue finds as a fact that the amount under reference belongs to the creditor, it has to, if the same is undisclosed, proceed only against the creditor under s. 69/69A, and any action under s. 68 would fail, pointing out again an either/or situation, and not and/or one. Thirdly, one has to keep in mind that the primary purpose of assessment is to assess and collect taxes. The benefit of the amount being availed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; Average creditor of credit for the in the year past 3 years ------------------------------------------------------- Swati Sharma 2,00,000 91,858 69,230 ------------------------------------------------------- S.P. Sharma 4,00,000 92,464 85,817 ---------------------------....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Business/ Not Not profession specified specified ------------------------------------------------------- (1) In each of the cases the nature of the business or profession is not specified. (2) In each case, neither the source of credit nor the creditor's background stands specified. (3) Income includes agriculture income as well, and is taken at net of the taxes paid, if any. Clearly, even as stated by the learned CIT(A), the creditworthiness of the creditors, rather than being proved, is disproved, and the creditors are persons with nominal income and resources, who would, in the normal course of events, find it difficult to even make the two ends meet and, in any case, not be able to build up capital even considering a simple living. Besides, equally importantly, no source stands stated, i.e., from where funds stand retrieved or sourced. If the same do not represent the creditor's capital, but only his borrowing, so that the creditor it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case, i.e., on its merits. 5.8 Next, I consider the genuineness aspect. The same spawns the whole length and breadth of the transaction, so that every aspect of it, including the assessee's conduct right upto the Tribunal stage, would assume relevance. In this regard, firstly, there has been non-discharge of onus cast under s. 68 of the Act, besides an apparent non-production of its witnesses in spite of being in contact therewith. The same, it may be argued, cannot by itself lead to any adverse finding on the genuineness aspect, which has to be of the transaction. Surely, every finding has to be based on and is rendered under the given facts and circumstances, so that where the onus is not met, the authorities below are entitled to draw an adverse inference; that, rather, being the statutory mandate. On its merits the assessee's case, again, fails in each case. The funds arrive from an unstated source in the creditor's bank account to be immediately transferred to the assessee. As such, firstly, it is not a case of transfer of funds held by the creditor in his regular bank account. Secondly, the source or the avenue of the funds being unspecified, it cannot be said that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate of s. 68 as having not been met in the facts and circumstances of the case by the assessee (or not), so that the AO's non-satisfaction in the matter becomes sustainable (or un-sustainable) in law. Secondly, the learned CIT(A), in upholding the AO's action, supported his findings by placing reliance on host of case law for the various principles which represent the settled ones in the matter, and which have not been rebutted or met by the assessee in any manner before us. As such, the factual findings by the learned CIT(A) as well as their legal basis remain, in effect, unchallenged, whose action in confirming AO's action stands impugned by the assessee per its present appeal. Under these circumstances; there being no ambiguity or ambivalence in the matter, with the learned CIT(A) having relied on case law by the apex Court, validating their application in the facts and circumstances of the case, which has not been shown to be infirm or, rather, even indicated to be so, it is difficult to see as to what assistance could be gathered from the case law cited by the assessee, particularly considering that the matter is essentially one of fact, so that the same would only be rendered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... based on the premise that the source of source cannot be enquired into, while, in the present case, the source remains unexplained. Further, inasmuch there is reference in the cited case to the decision by the apex Court in the case of Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., we have found the same to be not applicable, and stands also discussed by the learned CIT(A), with the assessee not showing us any infirmity in the same. The assessee's appeal, therefore, stands to be dismissed. J.P. BANSAL, J.M. (AS THIRD MEMBER): 20th May, 2009 There was a difference of opinion between the Members and following question has been referred for the opinion of the Third Member: "Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee has proved the impugned cash credit as per requirement of s. 68 or not." 2. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that there were certain cash credits and in the present appeal we are concerned with the following creditors, the credits of which were a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed unable to explain the source of deposits in the bank accounts of the creditors. It is for that reason, the AO added the above-mentioned credits to the income of the assessee. 4. Before CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee had submitted ample evidences to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the cash credits. It was contended that the AO asked the assessee to prove the source of source which could not be asked as per the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jauharima1 Goel (2006) 201 CTR (All) 54 : (2005) 147 Taxman 448 (All). However, the learned CIT(A) did not accept such submissions of the assessee and he held that the onus of proving the source of sum of the money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. He has relied on certain decisions listed out at p. 7 of the CIT(A)'s order. He has held that mere filing of confirmation letters does not discharge the onus that lies on the assessee and mere furnishing, of particulars is not enough and mere payment by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct nor can it make a non-genuine transaction genuine. For this pm-pose, he relied inter alia on two decisions of Calcutta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urce of credit, and the assessee had produced letter of confirmation etc., no adverse inference could be drawn that the said amount represented assessee's undisclosed income. 8. Further reference is made to the decision of Gauhati High Court in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (2003) 185 CTR (Gau) 635 : (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau) wherein it has been held that failure of creditor to show creditworthiness of his sub-creditor cannot lead to addition in the hands of the assessee. The assessee must be taken to have proved that the creditor had creditworthiness when the identity of creditor was proved and the amount was received by way of cheque. Reference in this regard has also been made to the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Rohini Builders (2003) 182 CTR (Guj) 373 : (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prem Kumar (2007) 161 Taxman 50 (All) wherein it has been held that when the assessee failed to produce his wife who was the cash creditor in that case, no adverse inference can be drawn by the AO, as the available evidence was to be considered in its normal perspective. Thus, it has been held by learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; years ------------------------------------------------------- Swati Sharma 2,00,000 91,858 69,230 ------------------------------------------------------- S.P. Sharma 4,00,000 92,464 85,817 ------------------------------------------------------- Tushti Sharma 2,00,000 91,072 74,214 ------------------------------------------------------- B.D. Sharma 4,00,000 75,571 73,707 ------------------------------------------------------- Late Smt. Vimla Sharma 5,00,000 50,400 47,721 ------------------------------------------------------- Table Continues... ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is observed by him that reliance by the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. is misplaced, as the assessee did not furnish correct addresses of the creditors which is evident from the non-service of summons and the assessee has consciously avoided the production of the creditors as the assessee was in touch with the creditors even at the first appellate stage, when the IT returns of the creditors for preceding years were submitted. It is also held that the assessee remained unable to establish the genuineness of the credits also as the creditors were never produced. The assessee could not explain the sources in creditors' bank account which were immediately transferred to the assessee. It is in these circumstances, the learned AM has upheld the order of CIT(A) vide which these cash credits were held to be rightly added by the AO. The abovesaid question arose from both these orders. 10. The learned Authorised Representative took me through the evidences filed by the assessee with respect to these creditors. For example, he referred to the documents submitted by the assessee in respect of Ms. Swati Sharma. Accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. Thus, it was contended that when the PAN was given by the assessee to the AO, mere non-service of summons on the creditors cannot lead ipso facto to the result that the alleged credits were undisclosed income of the assessee. 11. Further, reference was made to the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Barjatiya Children Trust to contend that in case of failure of AO to examine the income-tax files of the creditor and instead he chose the easier course of ordering the production of creditor to the assessee, such course adopted by the AO could not be appreciated and thus, the addition made by the AO could not be upheld. 12. Further reference was made to the decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT to contend that the burden of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction as well as creditworthiness of the creditor is confined to the transactions which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor and it is not the burden of the assessee to show the source of his creditor or to prove the creditworthiness of the source of such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me is not based on facts and circumstances of the case. The learned JM has not correctly appreciated the facts that the deposits were made in the bank accounts of cash creditors prior to issuance of cheques in their respective accounts. He contended that the assessee has not been able to establish the identity, creditworthiness as well as genuineness of the transaction. Hence, it was pleaded by the learned Departmental Representative that keeping in view the order of learned AM, the addition should be upheld. 16. In rejoinder, it was submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that the case law relied upon by the learned AM and CIT(A) are distinguishable on facts. He contended that the additions are liable to be deleted and they should be deleted. 17. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. I have also carefully gone through the orders of learned JM and AM and also the impugned assessment order and order of CIT(A). So far as it relates to the evidences submitted by the assessee to prove the cash credits, there is no dispute that the same were placed on record. The evidences, as discussed above, are in the shape of confirmations, copies of bank accounts, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under consideration as well as preceding years, Whether by filing these evidences, it can be said that the assessee had discharged the initial burden laid upon him under s, 68, Certainly, when the particulars regarding income-tax assessments and bank account have been filed then initial burden has to be held to be discharged and then the burden shifts on the Revenue to show that what is stated or explained by the assessee is not satisfactory. No material, whatsoever, has been brought on record by the Department to show that what was explained by the assessee, was not a correct state of affairs. If any sum is found credited in the accounts of the creditors, then the creditors may be examined so as to explain the credit. So far as the source of deposit in the account of the assessee is concerned, the assessee can be considered to have explained by bringing the material on record in the shape of confirmations, bank account and income-tax numbers of that person, This proposition is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation. It has also been so held by Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Rohini Builders that where the assesse....