DHANALAXMI JEWELLERS,ANGUL vs. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

Per L.P.Sahu, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, dated 09.03.2018 for the assessment year 2013-2014. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

2

on 28.09.2013 declaring at income of Rs.34,710/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and later on the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan to the tune of Rs.1,33,00,000/- from different

persons/body corporate, which reads as under :-

Name of the Party PAN Amount Aayus Mohata, Flat No. 4D, 493c/A G T BPFPM2403E 12,00,000 Road Vikek Vihar , Phase-V, Block- Eleven, Near Howrah Jute Mill, Kolkata, Wese Bengal- 711102 Apex Accounting Services Pvt. Ltd, 7 AAKCA2127P 17,00,000 Digambar Jain Temple Road, 5th Floor, Kolkata- 700007 Goodshine Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., 23B, N S AAECG2127P 20,00,000 Road, Kolkata- 700001 Indar Chandra Maheswari, C/o. M/s. AAWPM1427H 2,00,000 Bhutnath Store, Main Road, Angul- 759122 Juhi Vanjia Pvt. Ltd., 21 Rosemerrt AABCJ8917D 20,00,000 Lane, Howrah, West Bengal – 711101 Kaushalaya Maheswari, C/o. M/s. AZZPM0685A 3,00,000 Bhutnath Store, Main Road, Angul- 759122 Montrose Commodities Pvt. Ltd., 8/1, AABCM7537N 20,00,000 Lal Bazar Street, 3rd Floor, Room No.1, Kolkata- 700001 Priyanka Mundhra, C/o. M/s. APSPM0685A 3,00,000 Bhutbnath Store, Main Road, Angul – 759122 Raj Kumar Mohta, 9-hat Lane, Mullick ADRPM5323L 4,00,000 Fatakm 5th Floor, Howrah – 700001 Ranjan Kumar Sahu, C/o. M/s. Bhutnath DDXPS1862R 4,00,000 Store, Main Road, Angul – 759122 Rukma Devi Maheswari, 9-Hat Lane, AFMPM4147F 10,00,000 Mullick Fatak, 5th Floor, Howrah- 700001 Saroj Devi Maheswari, C/o. M/s. BFRPM5074F 1,00,000 Bhutnath Store, Main Road, Angul- 759122 Saroj Devi Jhanwar, 3030, Jai Shree BLKPD1718C 4,00,000 Ram Market, Ring Road, Surat, Gujrat- 395002

3 Shankar Prasad Maheswary, C/o. M/s. ATMPM1929M 3,00,000 Bhutnath Store, Main Road, Angul- 759122 Gopal Mundra(HUF), C/o. M/s. AAJHS8141K 4,00,000 Bhutnath Store, Laxmi Bazar, Main Road, Angul-759122 Ramanand Maheswari, C/o. M/s. AZZPM6646A 5,00,000 Bhutnath Store, Main Road, Angul- 759122 Total 1,33,00,000

income, bank statement, balance sheet and loan confirmation from the lenders. The assessee took several adjournments and thereafter filed

confirmations from the lenders on 31.12.2015 and submitted the following documents which read as under :-

Sl. Name of the Party PAN Amount Documents Documents No. submitted not submitted 1 Aayus Mohata, Flat BPFPM2403E 12,00,000 Loan confirmation, Statement of No. 4D, 493c/A G T ITR Copy, Bank total income Road Vikek Vihar , Statement, Balance- & Bank Phase-V, Block- sheet & P&L A/C statement Eleven, Near only the page Howrah Jute Mill, containing the Kolkata, Wese transaction Bengal- 711102 2 Apex Accounting AAKCA2127P 17,00,000 Loan confirmation, Statement of Services Pvt. Ltd, 7 ITR Copy, Bank total income Digambar Jain Statement, Balance- & Bank Temple Road, 5th sheet & P*L A/C statement Floor, Kolkata- only the page 700007 containing the transaction 3 Goodshine Vyapaar AAECG2127P 20,00,000 Loan confirmation, Statement of Pvt. Ltd., 23B, N S ITR Copy, Bank total income Road, Kolkata- Statement, Balance- & Bank 700001 sheet & P*L statement only the page containing the transaction 4 Indar Chandra AAWPM1427H 2,00,000 Loan confirmation, Bank Maheswari, C/o. ITR Copy, Bank statement M/s. Bhutnath Store, Statement, only the page Main Road, Angul- statement of total containing the 759122 income, Balance- transaction sheet

4 5 Juhi Vanjia Pvt. Ltd., AABCJ8917D 20,00,000 Loan confirmation, Bank 21 Rosemerrt Lane, ITR Copy, Statement Howrah, West (only the Bengal – 711101 transaction page), statement of total income, Balance-sheet 6 Kaushalaya AZZPM0685A 3,00,000 Loan confirmation, Balance-sheet Maheswari, C/o. ITR Copy, Bank & Bank M/s. Bhutnath Store, Statement, statement Main Road, Angul- statement of total only the page 759122 income containing the transaction 7 Montrose AABCM7537N 20,00,000 Loan confirmation, Bank Commodities Pvt. ITR Copy, Bank statement Ltd., 8/1, Lal Bazar Statement, only the page Street, 3rd Floor, statement of total containing the Room No.1, Kolkata- income Balance- transaction 700001 sheet & P&L A/C 8 Priyanka Mundhra, APSPM0685A 3,00,000 Loan confirmation, Bank C/o. M/s. Bhutbnath ITR Copy, Bank statement Store, Main Road, Statement, only the page Angul – 759122 statement of total containing the income Balance- transaction sheet & P&L A/C 9 Raj Kumar Mohta, 9- ADRPM5323L 4,00,000 Loan confirmation, Statement of hat Lane, Mullick ITR Copy, Bank total income Fatakm 5th Floor, Statement, & Bank Howrah – 700001 statement of total statement income Balance- only the page sheet & P&L A/C containing the transaction 10 Ranjan Kumar Sahu, DDXPS1862R 4,00,000 Loan confirmation, Bank C/o. M/s. Bhutnath ITR Copy, Bank statement Store, Main Road, Statement, only the page Angul – 759122 statement of total containing the income Balance- transaction sheet & P&L A/C 11 Rukma Devi AFMPM4147F 10,00,000 Loan confirmation, Statement of Maheswari, 9-Hat ITR Copy, Bank total income Lane, Mullick Fatak, Statement,Balance- & Bank 5th Floor, Howrah- sheet & P&L A/C statement 700001 only the page containing the transaction 12 Saroj Devi BFRPM5074F 1,00,000 Loan confirmation, Bank Maheswari, C/o. ITR Copy, Bank statement M/s. Bhutnath Store, Statement, only the page Main Road, Angul- statement of total containing the 759122 income Balance- transaction sheet 13 Saroj Devi Jhanwar, BLKPD1718C 4,00,000 Loan confirmation, Bank 3030, Jai Shree Ram ITR Copy, Bank statement Market, Ring Road, Statement, only the page Surat, Gujrat- statement of total containing the 395002 income Balance- transaction sheet

5 14 Shankar Prasad ATMPM1929M 3,00,000 Loan confirmation, Bank Maheswary, C/o. ITR Copy, Bank statement M/s. Bhutnath Store, Statement, only the page Main Road, Angul- statement of total containing the 759122 income Balance- transaction sheet 15 Gopal AAJHS8141K 4,00,000 Loan confirmation, Bank Mundra(HUF), C/o. ITR Copy, Bank statement M/s. Bhutnath Store, Statement only the page Laxmi Bazar, Main containing the Road, Angul-759122 transaction 16 Ramanand AZZPM6646A 5,00,000 Loan confirmation, Bank Maheswari, C/o. ITR Copy, Bank statement M/s. Bhutnath Store, Statement, only the page Main Road, Angul- statement of total containing the 759122 income Balance- transaction sheet Total 1,33,00,000

i.e. upto 31.03.2013 and in case of cash deposits prior to the loan

transaction, and also to furnish the cash-flow statement to find out the cash available on the date of deposit in the bank account and other

financial documents. The AO further noticed that in case of M/s Juhi

Vanijia Pvt. Ltd. & Apex Accounting Services Pvt. Ltd., notice u/s.133(6)

of the Act were returned unserved by the postal department with remark “Not Known” and in case of M/s Goodshine Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd.,

notice u/s.133(6) of the Act was neither returned nor any reply was received by the AO till the finalization of the assessment and the above

facts were intimated to the assessee for providing correct address. In this regard, the assessee submitted reply that the alleged correct

address of M/s Juhi Vanijia Pvt. Ltd. is registered with ROC’s site only

6 on 22.03.2016. After receipt of remaining creditors, who were coming

within the juri iction of the AO, noted that the lenders have deposited

cash into his/her bank account prior to the issuance of cheques for loan

in favour of the assessee, which has duly been noted by the AO his

order. The AO asked the assessee to arrange personal appearance of the lenders to examine the genuineness of transaction. For the genuineness of the transactions but the assessee expressed his inability

to produce the lenders within a short span of time. Again the case was fixed for hearing on 03.03.2016 and he also took time to produce the lenders within fortnight but till 18.03.2016 he again did not produce

before the AO to the lenders and again the case was fixed for hearing on 22.03.2016 and the assessee was asked to produce the lenders with their cash-flow statement as there were cash deposits prior to advancing of unsecured loan and on 22.03.2016 the assessee did not produce to any lenders and furnished written submissions ignoring the personal appearance of the lenders. On examination of the bank

accounts available before him, it was noticed that there was only cash

deposits. Ld. AO examined the details furnished by the assessee and accordingly he disallowed Rs.83 lakhs as unsecured cash credit u/s.68

of the Act. Further he noticed that the assessee had paid interest on the above loan to written off Rs.2,29,841/- and added to the total income of the assessee.

7

preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) after considering

the submission of the assessee and order of AO, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

also made oral arguments. He submitted that all the compliances were made as required by the AO. Further, ld. AR submitted that the assessee

during the course of assessment proceedings stated that as regards the cash deposits the same has been deposited in the bank account of the unsecured loan creditors much before the remittance of the loans.

Further, he submitted that it cannot be construed that there was cash

deposits immediately before the remittance of loan. Ld. AR further

submitted that the assessee has also filed copy of acknowledgement of ITR and bank statement of unsecured loan creditors proving their

identity and genuineness of the transactions. Accordingly, ld. AR

submitted that the assessee has fulfilled the ingredients of the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, therefore, prayed for deleting the addition. It was also contended by ld. AR that the AO has doubted the source of source, to which the assessee is not required to explain the source of source as per the settled law laid down by the hon’ble judicial

forums.

8

and submitted that ample opportunity was given to the assessee to produce the lenders before the AO but he did not avail the opportunity.

In case of two companies notice u/s.133(6) of the Act were returned

unserved by the postal authorities and he provided the correct address

in the fag-end of the time barring assessment. The assessee was unable

to satisfy the AO with regard to the conditions as contemplated under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act as decided by the many judicial

higher forums. The AO also observed that the lenders have deposited

cash in his bank account immediately before giving loans which also creates a doubt to the genuineness of the loans. He also submitted that in case of individuals lenders there is no genuine business activity

which shows from the computation of income.

received unsecured loan from different persons aggregating to Rs.1,33,00,000/-. On being asked by the AO, the assessee filed

confirmations, however, the AO made impugned addition u/s 68 of the 9 Act on the alleged ground that the assessee was not able to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction with 11 creditors/lenders amounting to Rs. 83,00,000/-. The AO also disallowed Rs.2,29,841/- on account of interest paid on loans in respect

of 8. In appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee observing

that the assessee has not provided any sufficient proof of identification

of subscriber company and the assessee has failed to comply with the directions of AO. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed copies of the acknowledgements of Income Tax returns,

confirmation of the accounts of the creditor, copy of the bank

statement, auditor’s report, balance sheet as on 31.03.2013, statement

of profit and loss for the year ended 31.03.2013, financial statements

for the year ended 31.03.2013, bank statements, etc. before the authorities below, which were verified by the AO. Copies of the same

are filed in the paper book before the Tribunal also. The documents

filed on record have not been disputed by the authorities below. The Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged

creditors to find out whether they were creditworthy or were such who could advance the alleged loans. There was no effort made to pursue the so-called alleged creditors by the AO during the assessment

proceedings. Considering the facts of the case in the light of material on record, it is clear that assessee produced sufficient documentary

10 evidence before the revenue authorities to prove the ingredients of Section 68 of the I.T. Act. Ld. AR during the course of hearing before us

submitted that once the documentary evidences are submitted by the assessee, burden shifts to the revenue and then Revenue should bring

on record material from which it could be concluded that transactions

between the assessee and the lenders, in fact, are not genuine. From the assessment order, it is clear that the AO has requisitioned all the lenders in question u/s.133(6) of the Act to furnish the bank statement

for the period from where the loan transactions have been made to end

of the relevant previous year i.e. upto to 31.03.2013 and in case of cash

deposits prior to the loan transaction along with cash flow statement to find out the availability of cash on the date of deposit in the bank

account. The A.O, however, did not make any further enquiry on the documents filed by the assessee. The A.O. thus, failed to conduct any enquiry and scrutiny of the documents at assessment stage and merely

suspected the transaction between the lenders and assessee because

the lenders have deposited cash in their respective accounts and transferred the same through banking channel to the assessee.

while discussing the transactions details and the financial capability of the each lender, has found that in case of M/s Juhi Vanijia Pvt. Ltd., M/s

Apex Accounting Services Pvt. Ltd. and Goldshine Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd.,

11 notice u/s.133(6) of the Act neither returned unserved nor any reply

was received from the lender company till the finalization of the assessment order. Now, the question arises as to why the AO has not invoked the provisions of section 131 of the Act available to the income

tax authorities for the personal presence of the lenders. For completeness of the order, we would like to reproduce the provisions

of Section 131 of the Act which read as under :-

Power regarding discovery, production of evidence, etc.

[(2) For the purpose of making an inquiry or investigation in respect of any person or class of persons in relation to an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A , it shall be competent for any income-tax authority not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

12 as may be notified by the Board in this behalf, to exercise the powers conferred under sub-section (1) on the income-tax authorities referred to in that sub-section, notwithstanding that no proceedings with respect to such person or class of persons are pending before it or any other income-tax authority.]

(3) Subject to any rules made in this behalf, any authority referred to in sub-section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] [or sub-section (2)] may impound and retain in its custody for such period as it thinks fit any books of account or other documents produced before it in any proceeding under this Act : Provided that an [Assessing] Officer [or an [Assistant Director [or Deputy Director]]] shall not— (a) impound any books of account or other documents without recording his reasons for so doing, or (b) retain in his custody any such books or documents for a period exceeding fifteen days (exclusive of holidays) without obtaining the approval of the [ [ [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner or [Principal Director or] Director therefore, as the case may be.]]

authorities to conduct inquiries. It provides powers to summon

persons/witnesses, examine them under oath, compel production of books of account and documents, and issue commissions. The power of enforcing attendance of a person under this section is the same as available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Generally, it is seen

that assessees are represented by their advocates/CAs/authorized

representatives during proceedings before the income tax authorities.

However, if it is felt that for inquiry in a particular matter, it is essential

to examine the concerned person or a witness, then powers under 13 section 131 of the Act are required to be invoked. If summons are issued and served on a person for personal attendance under section 131 of the Act, it is binding on him to attend in person as he cannot be represented by a lawyer or an authorized representative. Further, a person can also be compelled to produce books of account or documents by issuing a notice under section 131 of the Act. Non-

compliance with the summons/notice issued under section 131 of the Act may result in levy of penalty as per the provisions of the I.T.Act,

1961 for such a default. Here it is also important to clarify that an Assessing Officer can invoke section 131 of the Act for making inquiries

only in a case where proceedings are pending before him. For example,

during the course of ongoing assessment proceedings, the assessing

officer can summon a third party for verifying facts presented before

him by the assessee. He can also summon the assessee to his office for recording his statement on any of the issues relevant to the assessment. On the other hand, officers of the investigation wing can

exercise these powers even if no proceedings are pending with them.

They can invoke this section during the course of a search or during a survey for examining any person under oath.

that when the AO found that notices issued u/s.133(6) of the Act have 14 been returned unserved in case of three companies i.e. M/s Juhi Vanijia

Pvt. Ltd., Apex Accounting Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Goodshine

Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., he should have invoked the provisions of Section 131

of the Act, however, nowhere it smells in the assessment order that the AO made his effort to do the same. Further regarding the address

supplied by the assessee on which notices under section 133(6) of the Act remained unserved, assessee supplied the same address which is also shown in the income tax return of the lenders. Merely because

133(6) of the Act notices issued to the party returned un-served though

it was the same address, which was supplied by lenders while filing

their income tax return, no fault can be put on the shoulder of assessee.

2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 and came to the conclusion that the assessee has failed to let the lenders to appear in person during the course of assessment proceeding.

appearance of the lenders. It is surprising that when a very powerful

tool is available to the income tax authorities in their quest for the 15 truth, why the AO waited for the request of the assessee to issue

summons u/s.131 of the Act. Meaning thereby, the Assessing Officer

has also not bothered to enforce the presence of creditors by issuing

summons u/s. 131 of the Act. We, accordingly are not inclined to support the orders of the authorities below on this count also.

and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained cash credit in respect of the three companies i.e. M/s Juhi Vanijia Pvt. Ltd., Apex

Accounting Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Goodshine Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd.

amounting to (20,00,000+17,00,000+20,00,000)=Rs.57,00,000/-, on careful consideration of the orders of both the authorities below, we

are of the opinion that whenever a sum is found credited in the books

of account of the assessee then, irrespective of the colour or the nature

of the sum received which is sought to be given by the assessee, the Income-tax Officer has the juri iction to enquire from the assessee the nature and source of the said amount. When an explanation in regard

thereto is given by the assessee, then it is for the Income-tax Officer to be satisfied when the said explanation is correct or not. Further, the AO has only focused on the fact that some lenders have shown low

income in their return of income. In our opinion, the income/losses

declared by the lenders is not a sole criterion to examine the 16 creditworthiness of the lenders. None of the authorities below have brought any adverse material on record to falsify the fund flow shown

in the bank statements of creditors filed by the assessee. In any matter,

the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in Section 68 proceedings,

the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee yet once he proves the identity of the lenders by either furnishing their PAN number or Income-tax assessment number and shows the genuineness of transaction by showing money in his books either by account payee

cheque or by draft or by any other mode, then the onus of proof would

shift to the Revenue.

Court reported in [1986] 25 Taxmann 80F (SC), wherein the Hon’ble

Apex Court has held as under :- “In this case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the revenue that the said creditors were the income-tax assessees. Their index number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the assessee, did not pursue the matter further. The revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were credit-worthy or were such who could advance the alleged loans. There was no effort made to pursue the so- called alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the assessee could not do any further. In the premises, if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had discharged the burden that lay on him, then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion was based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such could arise.

17 The High Court was, therefore, right in refusing to refer the questions sought for. Decision of the High Court affirmed.”

v. U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396 (Bom.),

wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that if the parties had received the summons but did not appear, the assessee could not be blamed. However, where the summons was returned with the postal

remark ‘not known’ (and ‘not found’), the said is an endorsement of the presupposed that at the specific address furnished by the assessee the addressee could not be traced. In such cases, the question of issuing a second summons would arise only if the address given earlier was erroneous, and not when it was almost identical as held in the case

of Ram Kumar Jalan v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 331 (Bom.).

Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj), has held that mere

identification of the source of the creditors even without evidence as to the nature of the income could justify acceptance, where the assessee

18 has given PAN of the creditor and also shows that the amounts were received by account payee cheques. Hon. High Court, in this case,

endorsed the findings of the Tribunal that it is not necessary that there

should be explanation as to the source of the money on the part of the creditors in every case.

Bhan & Sons (2005) 273 ITR 206 (P & H), has observed that it was found that the credits were received by account payee cheques and the creditors were income tax assessees. But the contention of the Assessing Officer was that the assessee did not respond to the requirements of the production of creditors before him for verification.

The first appellate authority and the High Court felt that it was possible

for the Assessing Officer to have accepted the same or make further

enquiries with reference to the files of the creditors, since they were assessees.

received by the assessee during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 for the reason that the notice issued u/s 133(6) to the concerned loan creditor was returned back unserved by the postal authority. The assessee had provided the documents as required by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, which 19 have not been doubted by the authorities below. Merely because notice

u/s.133(6) of the Act issued to some of the creditors could not be served or they fail to appear before the Assessing Officer cannot be the basis to treat the loans taken by the assessee from those creditors as non-genuine. On this account, as discussed above, we are of the opinion

the addition made u/s.68 of the Act in the hands of above three lenders

i.e. M/s Juhi Vanijia Pvt. Ltd., Apex Accounting Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Goodshine Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. amounting to (Rs.20,00,000

+17,00,000+20,00,000)=Rs.57,00,000/- is not sustainable and we

delete the same.

has received loan, as noted by the AO in the assessment order, we

would like to reproduce the details income disclosed by the following

lenders in their respective returns as noted by the AO in its order read

as under :-

(i) Indar Chandra Maheswari :

Asst. Years 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 Basic 2,00,000 1,80,000 1,60,000 1,60,000 1,50,000 Exemption Returned 4,04,110 2,90,760 1,98,070 1,79,230 1,56,500 income (ii) Kaushalaya Maheswari :

Asst. Years 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 Basic 2,00,000 1,80,000 1,60,000 1,60,000 1,50,000 Exemption Returned 3,25,880 1,95,600 1,99,400 1,93,300 Not filed income

20 Priyanka Mundhra : Asst. Years 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 Basic 2,00,000 1,80,000 1,60,000 1,60,000 1,50,000 Exemption Returned 4,94,900 3,28,230 2,43,120 2,05,970 1,82,500 income (iv) Ranjan Kumar Sahu : [ Asst. Years 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 Basic 2,00,000 1,80,000 1,60,000 1,60,000 1,50,000 Exemption Returned 2,86,150 1,83,530 1,82,720 1,70,230 Not filed income (v) Shankar Prasad Maheswary : Asst. Years 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 Basic 2,00,000 1,80,000 1,60,000 1,60,000 1,50,000 Exemption Returned 3,20,140 1,91,910 1,73,800 1,63,800 Not filed income (vi) Gopal Mundra (HUF) : Asst. Years 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 Basic 2,00,000 1,80,000 1,60,000 1,60,000 1,50,000 Exemption Returned 4,70,670 2,81,650 1,80,040 1,67,790 1,63,710 income

(vii) Ramanand Maheswary :

Asst. Years 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 Basic 2,00,000 1,80,000 1,60,000 1,60,000 1,50,000 Exemption Returned 3,82,820 2,57,630 2,46,400 2,49,400 Not filed income

(vIii) Saroj Devi Maheswari , C/o M/s Bhutnath Store, Angul-759122- loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. In case of this assessee, there is no previous year’s return mentioned by the AO in the assessment order.

From the above, we find that the AO has taken into consideration of earlier years return of the lenders, as noted above, however, on perusal

of the assessment order, the AO has asked the assessee to provide cash

flow statement of the above lenders, which has not been furnished by the assessee till the first appellate stage. We observe that the lenders

21 have deposited cash into their respective bank accounts before advancing loan to the assessee. In the interest of justice, we restore the issue only for the limited purpose and direct the AO to verify and examine the cash availability in the hands of the respective lenders from legitimate business sources. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the AO for above examination and verification. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee.

22 आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीलाथी / The Appellant-

आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,

(Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक / ITAT, Cuttack