TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 423
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the following observation: "We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present case, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer framed the assessment ex-parte under section 144 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that there were mistakes in the PANs of the depositors given by the assessee. He also mentioned that the Assessing Officer in his remand report informed that the summons issued to certain depositors were returned on account of wrong address or incomplete address, however, the Ld. CIT(A) did not comment on the details furnished by the assessee which are placed at page nos. 1 to 67 of the assessee's paper book wherein the confirmation, acknowledgement of return of income, copy of PAN card and bank statements etc. of the depositors were given. It therefore, appears that the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the action of the Assessing Officer had not appreciated the facts in right perspective and also did not provide opportunity to the assessee for correcting the clerical mistakes, if any, in PA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ositor has been provided. He also relied on the following case laws: (i) Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 8 DTR (Raj) 199 (ii) Kanhaiya Lal Jangid Vs CIT (2008) 217 CTR 354 (Raj). (iii) Asstt.CIT Vs. Swami Complex (P) Ltd. (2007) 111 TTJ (JP) 531. 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. I have heard both the sides on this issue. The assessee has submitted correct PAN of all the depositors. He has also submitted confirmation from all these depositors. In the case of M.S. Jewellers, which is a proprietory concern of Satya Prakash Khandelwal, it is noticed that the amount of Rs. 50000/- were received by cheque. The assessee submitted PAN and confirmation of the depositor alongwith full address. It is also noticed from the account of the depositor that there was a opening balance of Rs. 3,54,000/-. Thus, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- received by the assessee by cheque was actually return of balance outstanding with M.S. Jewellers, proprietory concern of Satya Prakash Khandelwal, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition. In the case of Rishab Marble, proprietory concern of Rajeev Jain, the assessee has s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AN and confirmation. The ld. CIT(A) simply confirmed the addition by stating that the copy of bank account of the depositor was not furnished. All the transactions were through cheques. The assessee was able to discharge the onus U/s 68 of the Act by establishing the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the depositor. Hence, the addition is directed to be deleted. In the case of Radha Mohan Gupta, the assessee provided full address, his PAN. In the earlier occasion, there was a clerical mistake in providing PAN but subsequently, the assessee has submitted correct PAN of this depositor. All the transactions were through cheuqes. Therefore, I find no merit in sustaining the addition. In the case of Govind Ram, the assessee has furnished full address alongwith PAN and confirmation. The ld. CIT(A) simply confirmed the addition by stating that the copy of bank account of the depositor was not furnished. All the transactions were through cheques. The assessee was able to discharge the onus U/s 68 of the Act by establishing the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the depositor. Hence, the addition is directed to be deleted. In the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Krishan Kumar Khatuwala, the assessee has furnished full address alongwith PAN and confirmation. All the transactions were through cheques. The assessee was able to discharge the onus U/s 68 of the Act by establishing the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the depositor. Hence, the addition is directed to be deleted. The different Hon'ble High Courts and the Coordinate Bench of Jaipur ITAT in the following cases have decided such type of issue, which is as under: (i) Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008 8 DTR (Raj) 199 Once the existence of the creditors is proved and such person own the credits which are found in the books of the assessee, the assessee's onus stands discharged and the later is not further required to prove the source from which the creditors could have acquired the money deposited with him either in terms of section 68 or on general principle. (ii) Kanhiva Lai Jangid Vs. CIT (2008) 217 CTR 354 (Rai.) Income-Cash credit-Burden of proof-Assessee having filed confirmation from the creditor where the creditor affirmed advancement of loan to assessee, no addition under s. 68 could be made in the hands of assessee on the ground ....