Loading judgment…

RAJ KUMARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs ACIT CEN CIR 2, , JAIPUR | BharatTax

RAJ KUMARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, , JAIPUR

ITA 1024/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee received unsecured loans of Rs. 50,00,000/- each from Smt. Laxmi Agarwal and Smt. Suman Agarwal. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these loans as non-genuine cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and added them to the assessee's total income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

Held

The Tribunal noted that while the AO doubted the genuineness based on various factors like non-receipt of responses to notices, identical signatures, and lack of interest, the assessee provided confirmations, bank statements, and ITRs of the creditors. The Tribunal found that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors were sufficiently established. The Tribunal also noted that amendment to Section 68 regarding source of source is effective from AY 2024-25, and for AY 2017-18, proving the source of funds in the bank account was sufficient.

Key Issues

Whether the unsecured loans of Rs. 50,00,000/- each from Smt. Laxmi Agarwal and Smt. Suman Agarwal can be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Sections Cited

68, 115BBE, 143(3), 143(2), 142(1), 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1024/JP/2024

For Appellant: Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@

Hearing: 22/10/2024Pronounced: 26/12/2024

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1024/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke Raj Kumari Agarwal, ACIT, Vs. A36 Govindi, Takteshahi Road Central Circle-02, JLN Marg, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACMPA 7544 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Hitiesha Ruhela, Addl.CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 22/10/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 26/12/2024 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

On being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Jaipur-4 dated 29/07/2024 [ for short CIT(A)] the above-named assessee preferred the present appeal. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2017-18. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the assessment order dated 15.11.2019 passed under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, [ for short “Act] by ACIT, Central Circle-02, Jaipur [ for short AO].

“1 Under the facts and Circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 made by the Learned Assessing Officer on account of disbelieving the creditworthiness of unsecured loan taken (Rs. 50,00,000/- from Smt. Laxmi Agarwal and Rs. 50,00,000/- from Smt. Suman Agarwal) without considering the submission of the assessee.

2 Under the facts and Circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in giving finding regarding signature of loan creditors without any credible evidence and expert opinion that signature on the confirmations are not genuine and confirmations are tailored documents arranged by the assessee.

“4.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assess ment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- (A) The Learned Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) inter- alia making the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000 u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 for credits shown as received from Smt. Laxmi Agarwal and Smt. Suman Agarwal. Appellant has submitted that during the assessment year she has received two unsecured loans from the following persons - (i) Rs. 50,00,000/- from Smt. Laxmi Agarwal (PAN-AJCPA0531F), R/o Flat No. 901, JKD Pearl Landmark, B-196, University Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur (ii) Rs. 50,00,000/- from Smt. Suman Agarwal (PAN-BVCPS6520D), R/o Flat No. 901, JKD Pearl Landmark, B-196, University Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur With a view to verify the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties notices under section 133(6) of the Act were issued to both the parties by the learned AO during assessment proceedings. The notices were sent to speed post as well as on the ITBA system. The speed post notice sent to Smt. Laxmi Agarwal was not served and came back unserved. No reply was received by the learned AO from either of the parties during assessment proceedings. (B) As mentioned in the assessment order two separate show. cause notices were issued to the appellant with respect of Smt. Laxmi Agarwal and Smt. Suman Agarwal on dated 07-10-2019 and 01-11-2019 respectively wherein assessee was asked to show cause as why the amount credited in his books of accounts as unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- from Smt. Laxmi Agarwal and Smt. Suman Agarwal each should not considered as non genuine credit u/s 68 of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. In support of the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness the appellant has filed the (i) confirmation from both parties, (ii) both payer's bank account extract, (ii) Suman Agrawal's ITR page for the year TRUE COPY Raj Kumari Agarwal vs. ACIT (C) From the confirmations of the both the parties the leamed AO has given a factual finding that confirmation are tailored dovoments arranged by the assessee after issuance of show cause notice. Both the confirmations are signed in same handwriting/ by the same person which is evident from the pattern of writing Agarwal in signatures which is identically similar in both the confirmations. I have perused the copies of the confirmations filed by the appellant in the appeal proceedings and the finding of the assessing authority in this regard is found to be correct and is hereby upheld.

"3.2 As per section 68 of the Act onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so cast upon, First burden is upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts. The burden has to be discharged with positive material (Oceanic Products Exporting Co. v. CIT [2000] 241 ITR 497 (Ker.). The legislature had laid down that in the absence of satisfa clory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged u/s 68 of the Act. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down in Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169. A close reading of section 68 and 69 of the Act makes it clear that in the ca se of section 68, there should be credit entry in the books of account whereas in the case of 69 there may not be an entry in such books of account. The law is wellsettled, the onus of proving the source of a sum, found to be received/transacted by the assessee, is on him and where it is not satisfactorily explained, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the Revenue to show that income is from any other particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in CIT v. M. Ganpati Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC)A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) and also CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1969] 72 ITR 807 (SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmal [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) further throws light on the issue. In the case of a cash entry, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditor but also the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The onus lies on the assessee, under the facts available on record. A harmonious construction of section 106 of the evidence Act and section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Raj Kumari Agarwal vs. ACIT Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction byrebeques may not be always sacrosanct……..” In view of the above discussion the addition made in the assessment order is hereby pheld and this ground of appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 3 is as under: Ground No. 3: Under the facts and Circumstances of the case the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating the penalty proceedings us 271AAC1 of the IT Act 1961. 5.1 The ground is general in nature. The ground is pre-mature as this is against ere initiation of penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings are independent oceedings and the appellant is required to make his submissions before the ppropriate authority during the penalty proceedings. Accordingly, the ground of peal raised by the appellant on this issue is treated as disposed off. Ground of Appeal No. 4 is as under: Ground No. 4: The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. TAY DEPARTMENT

In support of genuineness of loans, the assessee furnished confirmations of the above two cash-creditors along with their PAN. The Learned Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness of the confirmations on the sole ground that these were signed by one and the same person. In view of this, the ld Assessing Officer held that the confirmations were tailored documents and held the loans as ingenuine and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68. The action of the Learned Assessing Officer was not justified as he doubted the signatures on confirmation purely on assumption and presumption. He did not obtain any FSL report before rejecting the confirmations. Further, copies of these confirmations have been scanned in the assessment order and apparently one can observe that signature of Laxmi Agarwal and Suman Agarwal can by no stretch of imagination be stated as from one and the same hand. The writing on both the confirmations is very different. In any case, the assessee filed appeal before the Learned CIT(A). II) GROUNDS ON WHICH APPEAL DISMISSED BY Learned CIT(A) The Learned CIT(A) has upheld the order of the Learned Assessing Officer on various counts, which are discussed one by one hereunder :- (i) Notices u/s 133(6) remained uncomplied with It is submitted that the ld CIT(A) has repeated the same grounds on which the Learned Assessing Officer has made the additions. It is the case of the revenue that in the case of Suman Agarwal, notice u/s 133(6) was issued and served, but remained uncomplied with. However, in this regard, it is submitted that Smt. Suman Agarwal was staying in Agra and directly responded to notice u/s 133(6) confirming that she had advanced the loan interest-free. It was further submitted by her in her letter dated 30/10/2019 addressed to the Mr. Jagdish Saran, ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur that she was 80 years old and the loan was advanced interest free as during the illness of her husband, she was helped a lot by Smt. Rajkumari Agarwal. In view of this reply of Suman Agarwal, it was wrong on the part of the Learned Assessing Officer and on the part of the Learned CIT(T)A to state that Suman Agarwal did not respond to notice u/s 133(6). Copy of her reply is available on Paper Book Page No.1-4. As regards notice u/s 133(6) to Smt. Laxmi Agarwal, it is mentioned in the assessment order that the notice was not served. In the circumstances, no reply Raj Kumari Agarwal vs. ACIT was received from Laxmi Agarwal. For all this, assessee cannot be held responsible. (ii) Confirmations of cash creditors were tailored documents. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished confirmation of both the cash creditors duly signed by them and bearing PAN. Copies of these confirmations are available on Paper Book Page No.5-6. The Learned Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness of the confirmations on the sole ground that these were signed by one and the same person. In view of this, the ld Assessing Officer held that the confirmations were tailored documents and held the loans as ingenuine and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68. The action of the Learned Assessing Officer was not justified as he doubted the signatures on confirmation purely on assumption and presumption. He did not obtain any FSL report before rejecting the confirmations. Further, copies of these confirmations have been scanned in the assessment order and apparently one can observe that signature of Laxmi Agarwal and Suman Agarwal can by no stretch of imagination be stated as from one and the same hand. The writing on both the confirmations is very different. However, the Learned CIT(A) also agreed with the view taken by the Learned Assessing Officer. In this regard, it is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer as well as the Learned CIT(A) are not authorities to pass judgments on writing of an individual. The best course would have been to have referred the matter to FSL, which was not done. Hence, the view taken by the Learned Assessing Officer as well as the Learned CIT(A) is of no consequence. The assessee stands by the fact that the confirmations are signed by the concerned cash creditors. These are genuine documents and should not have been rejected purely on presumption and assumption. (iii) No interest has been charged It is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer as well as the Learned CIT(A) were not justified in making addition of the cash credits on the ground that the assessee did not pay any interest on the amount of loans. It is submitted that payment of interest is totally governed by the relations between the parties. There is no provision or rule regarding charging of interest or on rate of interest. Suman Agarwal in her reply to notice u/s 133(6) had stated that the assessee, Rajkumari Agarwal, had extended a lot of help when her husband was admitted in Jaipur hospital. This was sufficient consideration for not charging interest. As regards Laxmi Agarwal, it is submitted that she happens to be one of the individual of the group to which the assessee belongs, i.e JKD Group. In view of the ties of the group persons, interest was not charged by her. In view of these facts, it is submitted that cash credits could not have been rejected on the ground that these were not interest bearing. Loans are advanced interest free on various considerations. (iv) Filing of income tax return by the cash creditors Raj Kumari Agarwal vs. ACIT The Learned CIT(A) has also acted in the same fashion as done by the Learned Assessing Officer . It is the case of the revenue that returns of income have not been filed by Laxmi Agarwal for A.Y. 2014-15 onwards and Suman Agarwal has filed returns for A.Y. 2017-18, but income disclosed at Rs. 347530/- is not commensurate with the amount of loan advanced.

It is submitted that the assessee has provided confirmation of both the cash creditors bearing PAN. Enforcing filing of return of income is the job of the Department and assessee is not in a position to help in this regard. PAN has been given to establish the genuineness of the identity of the cash creditor. Further, return of income of Rs. 347530/- by Suman Agarwal cannot be yardstick to reject the cash credit. She is also her advanced years of life. Sources of income may be meagre. In view of these facts, the Learned CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the cash creditors with reference to returns of income. (v) Copies of bank account of cash creditors are only of limited period. It is submitted that one of the grounds on which the Learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of cash credits is that the bank account of the creditors was only of limited period, which does not discloses the sources of loan advanced. In this regard, it is submitted that copy of ICICI bank account of Laxmi Agarwal with PAN for the period 1/4/2016 to 31/3/2017 is enclosed (Paper Book Page No.7-11.) which discloses that at no stage during this period, the amount standing to the credit of Laxmi Agarwal was less than Rs. 10 lacs. This shows the capacity of Laxmi Agarwal that in the saving bank account the amount of more than Rs. 10 lacs was always lying idle. It also explains why interest was not charged by her. Copy of bank account of Suman Agarwal along with ITR is also available on Paper Book Page No.12-13. She has advanced an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- on 24/6/2016. In view of the fact that amount of cash credits have come through banking channels, the same is proved to be genuine. It is further submitted that the assessee is not required to prove the source of source. The Learned CIT(A) is not justified in stating that the bank statements were of selective small periods and could not explain as how the lender parties was having the source of funds. The amendment in the Income Tax Act for proving the source of source in respect of individuals has come w.e.f. 1/4/2023, which is effective from A.Y. 2024-25. In the case of the assessee, the assessment year is 2017-18. In these facts and circumstances, it was enough on the part of the assessee to establish that amount has come from the bank account of the cash-creditors. The assessee is not required to prove the source of amount in the bank accounts of the cash creditors. In view of this, the Learned CIT(A) was not justified in treating the cash credits as bogus. The same deserve to be accepted. (vi) Source of repayment not disclosed Before the Learned CIT(A), the assessee also submitted that in the case of both the cash-creditors, the amounts have been returned/repaid by the assessee Raj Kumari Agarwal vs. ACIT through bank on 12/5/2019 and 15/4/2019 as mentioned in the Table above. The Learned CIT(A) has doubted the source of repayment. The assessee has repaid the amounts through banking channels, which stand credited in the relevant bank account of the creditors. Copy of the bank account of the creditors reflecting the repayment of loan amount are available on Paper Book Page No.14-15. It is further submitted that the Learned CIT(A) was not justified in doubting the repayment capacity of the assessee. For the year under consideration, the assessee has furnished return of income of Rs. 3,08,89,860/-. The income enjoyed by the assessee itself is a good indication regarding her capacity for repayment of loan. As the loans have been repaid, their genuineness cannot be doubted. (III) CASH CREDITS ARE GENUINE In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, the cash credits in the case of the assessee are genuine. The assessee has discharged its onus in proving the identity of the cash creditors, the genuineness of the transaction has also been proved as the same is through banking channel. The assessee has furnished the following documents in support of the genuineness of the cash credits :-

In view of the above, it is submitted that the genuineness of the cash-creditors stands proved beyond doubt. The addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer and so confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. (IV) FAVOURABLE DECISIONS The Learned CIT(A), while confirming the addition made on account of cash credits u/s 68, has cited a number of decisions. It is submitted that on the issue of cash credits and their genuineness, there are more number of decisions in favour of the assessee. The same are quoted in the following para. It is also submitted that when there are two opinions on the same issue, the one favourble to the assessee requires to be accepted ( 88 ITR 192 Vegetable Products). (1) Aravali Trading Co Vs. ITO 25-1-2007 (2008) 8 DTR (Raj) 199 Raj Kumari Agarwal vs. ACIT 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 stand discharged and the latter 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. (2) Kanhialal Jangid Vs CIT CIT (2008) 217 CTR 354 (Rajasthan high court) In the case of cash credits, confirmation and existence of the credit is enough. (3) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd (159 ITR 78 (SC) It was held that the assessee had given names and addresses of the alleged creditors, which were income tax assessees, their index nos. were also in the file of the Revenue, however, Revenue after issuing notices u/s 131 did not pursue the matter further and examined the source of income of the alleged creditors. There was no effort made to pursue the so called alleged creditors. In these circumstances, Supreme Court held that no addition could be made. The assessee had discharged the burden laid upon it. (4) CIT Vs. Chandela Trading Corporation Pvt Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 232 (Kolkata High Court) Mere omission on the part of the creditors to subject themselves to the enquiry by the revenue or their failure to furnish accounts would not lead to the conclusion that the creditors were bogus. (5) CIT Vs. HS Builders 78 DTR 169 (Rajasthan High Court)

As per section 68 of the Act onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so cast upon, First burden is upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts. The burden has to be discharged with positive material (Oceanic Products Exporting Co. v. CIT [2000] 241 ITR 497 (Ker.). The legislature had laid down that in the absence of satisfa clory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged u/s 68 of the Act. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down in Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169. A close reading of section 68 and 69 of the Act makes it clear that in the ca se of section 68, there should be credit entry in the books of account whereas in the case of 69 there may not be an entry in such books of account. The law is wellsettled, the onus of proving the source of a sum, found to be received/transacted by the assessee, is on him and where it is not satisfactorily explained, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the Revenue to show that income is from any other particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in CIT v. M. Ganpati Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC)A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) and also CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1969] 72 ITR 807 (SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmal [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) further throws light on the issue. In the case of a cash entry, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditor but also the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The onus lies on the assessee, under the facts available on record. A harmonious construction of section 106 of the evidence Act and section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Raj Kumari Agarwal vs. ACIT Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction byrebeques may not be always sacrosanct……..” In view of the above discussion the addition made in the assessment order is hereby upheld and this ground of appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed.

Jagdish Saran, ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur that she was 80 years old and the loan was advanced interest free as during the illness of her husband, she was helped a lot by Smt. Rajkumari Agarwal. In view of this reply of Suman Agarwal, it was wrong on the part of the Learned Assessing Officer and on the part of the Learned CIT(T)A to state that Suman Agarwal did not proceeding the assessee had furnished confirmation of both the cash creditors duly signed by them and bearing PAN. Copies of these confirmations are available on Paper Book Page No.5-6. The Learned Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness of the confirmations on the sole ground that these were signed by one and the same person. In view of this, the ld Assessing Officer held that the confirmations were tailored documents and held the loans as ingenuine and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68. The action of the Learned Assessing Officer was not justified as he doubted the signatures on confirmation purely on assumption and presumption. As regards the not paying the interest it was submitted that the payment of interest is totally governed by the relations between the parties. There is no provision or rule regarding charging interest or on rate of interest. Suman Agarwal in her reply to notice u/s 133(6) had stated that the assessee, Rajkumari Agarwal, had extended a lot of help when her husband was admitted in Jaipur hospital. This was sufficient consideration for not charging interest. As regards Laxmi Agarwal, it is submitted that she happens to be one of the individual of the group to which the assessee belongs, i.e JKD Group. In view of the ties of the group persons, interest was not charged by her. In rejected on the ground that these were not interest bearing. Loans are advanced interest free on various considerations having faith respect and relations. As regards the filling the ITR we note that Ms. Laxmi Agarwal filed ITR for A.Y. 2014-15 onwards and Ms. Suman Agarwal has filed returns for A.Y. 2017-18. Thus, as it is clear that the assessee has provided confirmation of both the cash creditors bearing PAN. Enforcing the filing of return of income cannot decide the genuineness of loan. The depositors PAN were supplied and ld. AO noted that the profile of both the depositor were checked so the identity of the cash creditor established. So far genuineness and capacity is supported by the bank statement and confirmation. In view of these facts, the Learned CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the cash creditors. As regards the contention that the bank account of the creditors was only for a limited period, which does not discloses the sources of loan advanced. In this regard, it is submitted that copy of ICICI bank account of Laxmi Agarwal with PAN for the period 1/4/2016 to 31/3/2017 placed on record (Paper Book Page No.7-11.) which discloses that at no stage during this period, the amount standing to the credit of Ms. Laxmi Agarwal was less than Rs. 10 lacs. This shows the capacity of Ms. Laxmi Agarwal that in the saving bank account the amount why interest was not charged by her. As regards the copy of bank account of Ms. Suman Agarwal along with ITR is also available on Paper Book Page No.12-13. She has advanced an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- on 24/6/2016.

In view of the fact that amount of cash credits have come through banking channels, the same is proved to be genuine. It is further submitted that the assessee is not required to prove the source of source. The Learned CIT(A) is not justified in stating that the bank statements were of selective small periods and could not explain as how the lender parties was having the source of funds. The amendment in the Income Tax Act for proving the source of source in respect of individuals has come w.e.f. 1/4/2023, which is effective from A.Y. 2024-25. In the case of the assessee, the assessment year is 2017-18. In these facts and circumstances, it was enough on the part of the assessee to establish that the amount has come from the bank account of the cash-creditors. The assessee is not required to prove the source of the amount in the bank accounts of the cash creditors. In view of this, the Learned CIT(A) was not justified in treating the cash credits as bogus and the considering the fact that the cash credits in the case of the assessee are genuine because identity of the cash creditors, the genuineness of the transaction has also been proved as the dated 30/10/2019 from Suman Agaral addressed to the Assessing Officer in response to notice u/s 133(6), Copy of bank account both of Suman Agarwal and Laxmi Agarwal reflecting the loan transactions, Copy of bank account of Suman Agarwal and Laxmi Agarwal reflecting the repayment of loan, Copy of IT return of AS.Y. 2017—18 of Suman Agarwal, Copy of IT return of the assessee establishing her capacity to return the amount. Thus, considering the discussion so recorded and based on the evidence so placed on record we hold that the genuineness of the cash-creditors stands proved beyond doubt. The addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer and so confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) directed to be deleted. We get strength of our view from the decision of our High Court decision in the case of Mangilal Agarwal Vs. ACIT reported in 300 ITR 372 (Rajasthan High Court), wherein High Court observed that :