Income Tax Officer vs Sachin Sharma

“1 . That the Ld. CIT( A) has e rred in la w and on facts in del eti ng t he a ddition of Rs.23,81,2 0,168/- made by the Assessi ng Officer on acc ount of bogus purc has es from M/s. Baba Metals Co mpany Unit 2, without appr eciati ng the findi ngs of the Investigati on Wi ng and the mate rial evidences gat hered duri ng assessment proceedi ngs, whic h cl early establi shed that the s aid entity was enga ged i n iss ui ng acc ommodation bills wit hout actual supply of goods.

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has er red in r elyi ng upon the judgment of the Hon’ble S upreme Court in the cas e of CIT v. Odeon Buil ders (P.) Ltd. [2019] 110 taxmann.com 64 / 226 Taxman 461, without appreciati ng t hat the facts of the pres ent cas e arc disti nguisha ble, as the suppliers in this case were non-file rs/stop filers.

3.

That t he Ld. CIT(A ) has erred i n del eting the ad dition of Rs . 1,13,99,7 55/- out of the total addition of Rs.1,18,99,755/-made u/s 68 of t he Act, wi thout proper ve rificati o n of the identity, genui nenes s, and creditwo rthi ness of the l enders, even t hough t he assessee had fail ed to pr oduce P AN, ITRs, OR bank stat ements o f t he conc erned creditors and i gnori ng the fact that none of t he l e nders have pr ovi ded any confirmati on of loa n advanc ement.

4.

That the Ld. CIT(A ) has failed to appreciate that the Assessi ng Officer findi ngs were based on c oncret e and corrobo rated mat erial evidence c ollected during t he course of assessme nt as well as information received from the i nvesti gation Wi ng, and hence the relief of Rs.32,29,47,323/-granted to t he assessee is unjus tified and liable to be reversed.”

“1 . That havi ng regard to the facts and circumstances of the case , Ld. C IT(A ) has er red i n law and on facts in confirmi ng the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- out of the total additi on of Rs. 1,1 8,99,755/- made by Ld. A O on acc ount unsec ured loan by treati ng it as allege d cas h cr edit u/s 68 and taxi ng the same u/s 115BBE and tha t too by rec ording i nco rrect fac ts and fi ndi ngs and witho ut observi ng the pri nciples of nat ural j us tice.

2.

That i n any case and i n any vi ew of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A ) i n c onfirming the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- o ut of the tot al addition of Rs. 1,18,99,755/- made by Ld. AO on account uns ecured l oan u/s 68/115BBE, is bad i n law and a gai nst the fa cts and circumstances of the case.

3.

That havi ng regard to the facts and circumstances of the. c ase, ass umpti on o f j urisdict ion i n passing of t he impugned ass ess ment order by Ld. AO u/s 143(3 )/144B dat ed 20-03-2025 i s illegal, bad in law and nulli ty i n t he ey es of law as t he mandatory notice u/s 143(2) has not bee n iss ued in terms of CBDT i ns truction dated 23-06-2017 and i n vie w of judgment Sajal Biswas vs ITO i n ITA 1244/Kol./2023, D ate of order 26-03 -2025. Kol kata ITAT.

4.

That havi ng regard to the facts and circumsta nces of the case , Ld. C IT(A ) has er red i n law and on facts in not del eti ng the i mpugned additions/disallowanc es made by the Ld. AO i n the assessment order dat ed 20-03-2025, whic h were made bey ond the scope and jurisdi cti on of limited scruti ny and, t heref ore, are bad in law.”

“2 . The invoices wer e issued al ong wi th E-way Bills and consignment no tes fr om the trans porter duri ng which perio d t he supplier's GST r egistration was valid and active, and paym ent was made t hrough pr oper bank ing channels, evidencing moveme nt of goods. T he suppliers had als o filed r eturns duri ng their res pective fi nancial perio d (disput e peri od). The ca ncellation/s uspe nsion of registr ati on was effect ed muc h later and was an administr ative act beyond the c ontr ol and knowl edge of the taxpayer. At the ti me o f purchase, the re was no thi ng to suggest that the suppl ier was non-compliant or that his re gistrati on would later be c ancelled.”

“4 .1.3 The appellant is involved in the busi ness of ma nufacturi ng cum pr oce ssi ng of scrap l ea d refi ning, e xtracti on of pure lead metal for industrial purpose, in t he name and s tyle of M/s. Telcon Pigments. The appellant pur chases rec ycled/re-me lted lead i n impure form, chemically process es and refi nes, t o c onver t it into pur e lead met al in the form of i ngots and powder c alled pigm ents. The appellant has submitt ed vol uminous docume nts namely to est ablish the genui ne ness of pur chas es r eco rded fro m M/s Baba Met al C ompa ny.

i.

Invoice

ii.

Dharma ka nta slip

iii.

Transport billty

iv.

E-Way Bill, v ehicl e no.

v.

Purchase ord er

vi.

Photo of t ruck /driver at Baba Metal etc.

vii.

Photo of tr uck with goods at appellant’s premis es,

reflecti ng date time

viii.

Copy of RC of Vehi cle From the above doc uments, the appell ant has not only been to establi sh t he fac t that t he purc hase was made but also by way of invoice, Dharma kant a slip, Trans port billty, E-Way Bill, ve hicle no., Photo of truck/driver at Baba Metal, Phot o of t ruck with go ods at appellant’s pr emises, re flecti ng date time etc. , Copy o f RC of Vehicle etc. T he factum of transport and physical delivery of goods also s tands est ablished. It is seen fr om page 36 to 38 and 45 of the assessm ent order tha t such d etails and evidences were al so produc ed befor e t he A O at the ti me of ass essm ent. The appellant has also f urnis hed comp lete inventory of stock of raw material, fi nished goods and t he reconciliation stat ement regarding the stoc k with reference to t he above and the sales b efor e the AO. The submissi o n of t hese document is duly acknowl edged in t he assessment order, as given above a nd has also been reproduc ed on a sampl e basis in the assessment order. The A O has not found a ny discrepancy in t he said statement or the docum ents exc ept the only point t hat t he invoice and transport bill s produced by the app ell ant does not carry an acknowl edgem ent st amp of the appellant for r eceipt of goods.

4.1.4

The said obj ec tion was raised by the AO i n the SCN and has been s uitabl y a nswer ed by the appellant stati ng that it was for the appella nt to decide a nd devise t he system for s howi ng the acknowl edgement o f goods and the re was no statutory r equireme nt for providing a stamp of receipt either on t he i nvoice or on t he t ransport bills. The appellant has expl ai ned i n t he s ubmission fil ed on 15.09.2025 that the receipt of go ods was dul y ent ered in the stock register and t he ac kno wl edgement stamp of t he same wa s given on the tra nspo rter’s copy o f transport bill fo r tra nsporter’s and supplier’s rec ords and t here was no need nor any l ogic for the appellant to put his own sta mp on his own copy which was maintai ne d by him for his records. The a ppellant has co rrectly mai ntained that for t his simple reason the nonavailability of stamp on the transport documents has a n obvious e xplanati on and henc e, the ac tion of the AO of rej ecting t he authenticity and evidentiary value of the whol e s et of docume nts was t otally uncalled for . The appellant also has argued that as long as the qua nti ty and value of the pur chas es was established and rec onciled wit h the help of purchase orde r, i nvoice, e-way bills, dharam kanta docume nts etc. the AO’s addition was tot ally unjustifi ed on one si ngle poi nt that t he transport bills, which are the copy of the appellant, did not cont ai n the ackno wl edgement stamp. As a gai ns t this, the appellant has produc ed the volumino us documents for each and every consi gnment i.e. i nvoice, Dharma kanta slip, Tr ansport bil lty, E-Way Bi ll, vehicle no., Pho to of truck/driver a t Baba Metal, Phot o of truck wi th goods at appellant’s pr emi ses, re flecti ng date time etc ., C opy of RC of Vehicle and which have not be en found t o be unacc eptable for any reason by the AO. Thro ugh thes e docume nts t he appellant has clearly and st rongly establ ished the fact that the when the goods in question left t he premises of the suppli er, which dharam kanta was used for weighi ng the goods, which trucks were used for tra nsport of material, when and which dri ver carried t he go ods and when did he deliver the goo ds at the appellant’s premises. Thus the appellant has thr ough a me ti culously and syst ematically doc ument ed complete chai n of documents, (whos e e videntiary val ue has not been questi oned by t he A O, but f or one poi nt clarified above) be en clearly abl e to establish the fact that the pur chas e of material claimed by it was actually pur chas ed from M/s B aba Metal Company and was physically tr ansported a nd delivered at the pr emise of t he appellant. Through the documents viz. Dhar ma kanta sli p, Transport billty, E-Way Bill, ve hicle no., Photo of truck/driver a t Baba Metal, Phot o of truck wi th goods at appellant’s pr emi ses, reflecti ng date time etc ., C opy o f RC of Vehicle, the ge nui neness or authenticity of which we re not controverted by the AO – the appellant has stro ngl y est ablished the fac t that the goo ds w ere physically dispatche d, trans ported and delivered at the appellant’s site. T he entire all egati on about bo gus pur chas es a nd pa per i nvoic es on the basis of which the additi on has been made fall s flat and has no l egs to stand upon in view of suc h vol umi nous, uncontr over ted and cl ear documents submitted by the app ellant.

4.1.5

The AO has also whil e maki ng the additi on emphasized on the fact tha t in the absence o f any retracti on s ta tements fr om S h. Aman, prop. of M/s B aba Metal C ompany , the c onfirmati on give n by him vide VC dated 03.03.2025 and confirmati on dat ed 06.03.2025 are not tenable. The appellant has submitted that i n none of t he ext rac ted parts of stat ement o f Sh. Aman quot ed by t he AO i n t he assessment orde r, t here is a nythi ng stated whic h is p r ejudicial di rectly or i ndirectly to the appellant. The re was not even mention of the appella nt or a ny other party i n those ext racted parts. The extract ed p art of statement only s tates that S h. Ama n was unabl e to recall t he name o f t he parties or the de tails of the loos e handwritten slips whic h he offered to gi ve later. Thus, t here was nothi ng in t he statem ent of Sh. A man agai ns t t he appel lant whic h needed r etraction and wi thout whi ch t he co nfirma tion of Sh. Aman regarding the ge nui neness of t he purc hase by the ap pellant lo oses its evidenti ary val ue. The c ontention of the appella nt has merit as the AO has not been a ble to show any where that any statement of S h. Aman in anyway was prej udicial to the appellant. In fact, in the all thr ee quot ed por tions of the appellant S h. A man has mer ely s tated that he is unable to recal l the name of the parties or the detai ls of loose sheet. H e has not mentio ned anywhere nam e of any person or vendor, let alone mentioni ng the name of the appellant. Thus , the AO’s action of r ejecti ng the confirmatio n on the basis of lac k of r et raction of Sh. Aman is totally misplaced and uncalled for. Thus , either t he ori gi nal statement of Sh. Aman or lac k of r etr action t hereof has nothi ng which can l ead to drawi ng of adverse inference regarding the purchase transacti ons of the appellant with t he said party. Also, t he ref erenc e and reproduc tion of the handwritt en slips on page 28-29 of t he assessment order , s aid t o have been found o n the mobile phone o f S h. Aman, does not appear to have any connecti on wit h the appellant and there is not even a whis per i n t he ass essme nt order that they ar e i n any way connected to the appellant. There for e, there is not hi ng in t he sai d evidence which can be taken agai nst the appellant.

4.1.6

T he AO has solely relied on the findi ng of the Investi gation wi ng for maki ng thi s addition and has rejected the entire evidence s ubmit ted by t he appellant. The said findi ng of the i nvesti gation wi ng is with regards to case of Baba Metal Company and the sam e cannot be simply transport ed to the case of the appellant . S uc h act of drawi ng i nfe renc e agai nst the appellant from a pr oceedi ng c onducted on Baba Metal , without any evidence agai nst the appella nt ra ther on the face of s uch overwhel ming documentar y evidences submitted b y the appellant is totally unj ustifi ed.

4.1.7

The o ther obser vation of the AO is t hat FY 20 22-23 is the first year of busi ness for t he Appellant with a t ur nover of Rs.6 6,13,37,291/- in the first year of busi ness its elf. In vi ew of the facts and circumst ances of t he c as e, the pr eponderance of pr obability goes agai ns t appellant’s ar guments . Quoti ng the judgement of the full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court i n the case of Gulabcha nd Gamghirmal Vs. Kudilal Govi ndram Seksaria, 1960 M.P.L.J (F.B ) 334 has categorically held that i n ci vil cases prepo nderanc e of probability constitut es a sufficient ground for a decision, if the facts and circums tanc es are such that a reasonabl e man would draw a pa rtic ul ar infe rence from t hem. “The re ply given by t he assessee strongl y pr eponderati ng agai nst the claim of the as sessee that assessee had sales tur nover of Rs.66,13,37,291/- in the very first year of busi ness .” The AO’s act of drawi ng infer ence on the basis of the fact t hat the appellant could not have achi e ved s uch a t ur nover in t he first year is totally unj ustifi ed and devoid of merit . The s tandar d of preponderanc e of pr obabilities is applied i n a case where dir ect evidence are l acki ng. When direct evidence is availabl e, the duty of a qua si-judicial authority is to eval uate the quality and quanti ty of evidence pres ented on both sides. The case has t o be decide d on the basis of e videnc e that has greater weight or cr edibility. Whe re di rect evidences ar e available, t here is no question of invoki ng the pri nci ple of pr ep onderanc e of probability and that too on such s hallow and flimsy basis.

4.1.8

In an ide ntical case i n CIT v. Odeon B uilders (P.) Ltd. [2019] 110 taxma nn.c om 64/226 Taxman 461, pur chas es we re di sallowed based on informati on gat hered by the investi gation wi ng and which was not fur ther verified by t he AO as is the case here, the Hon'ble Supre me Court dismissed the S LP of depa rtment and held t he purchases to be genui ne whe re the assessee substantiated his purchas es through var ious docume ntatio n i ncludi ng purchas e bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and fact of payment t hr ough cheques, VAT Registration of sellers a nd their Income -tax Return. In the present case als o, the appellant has not only been abl e t o establis h the pur chas e, but also transpor tati on and deliver y, confirmatio n from the supplier t hrough video c onferenc e before the A O and also payme nt t hrough bank ing channels.

4.1.9

In vi ew of the above, t he AO’s disallowance of Rs.23,81,20,168/- towards unsubstantiat ed clai m of pur chas es i s unj us tified and is acc ordi ngl y del eted. Hence, this gr ound of appeal is allowed.”

“4 .2.1 Gr ound No . 3: Vide this gr ound, the appella nt has challenged the addition o f Rs .7,34,27,579/- on acc ount of differenc e between credits appeari ng i n t he bank acco unt amounting t o Rs .73,47,64,870/- and t he tur nover repor ted i .e. Rs.66,13,37,2 91/-.

4.2.2

It i s seen t hat the AO has issued a sho w caus e prop osi ng to add t he said differ ence between credits appeari ng i n the bank account amounti ng to Rs.73,47,64,870/- and t he turnov er report ed i .e. Rs.66,13,37,291/- u/s 69A. The ver y issue of s how caus e dat ed 14.02.2025 on the above ground shows lack of understandi ng of fac ts a nd acc ounting pri nciples on t he part of the AO. It appears that the AO has start ed with the premise t hat all credit entri es in the ba nk ac co unt shoul d be par t of the turnover and could not s hed the said preoccupation, even after recei pt of r eply and rec onci liation fr om the appellant . T he appella nt has furnished t he followi ng reconciliation before the AO:

S. N o. P ar t ic u la rs Am o unt 1. C ap i t al Ac c o unt Rs .4 9 ,9 4, 00 0 /-2. C as h D e p o si t ed i n t he Rs .6 ,0 0 ,0 00 / -b a nk 3. Un s ec ur ed lo ans Rs .7 8 , 7 5, 00 0 /-r ec e ive d d u r ing t he y ea r 4. R ec e iv e d f r o m s ub s id y Rs .2 0 , 0 0, 00 0 /-a ga i ns t m ach i ne ry 5. L oa ns & Adv anc e s Rs .4 ,0 0 ,0 00 / -( Ass e t ) 6. R e v e rs a l fr om c r ed it o rs Rs .8 ,6 8 ,0 06 / -7. I nd i re ct Exp e ns es Rs .4 /-

8.	R ec e iv e d a ga i ns t S ale s & Ad va nc es	Rs .7 1 , 3 7, 88 ,0 63 /-
	T ot al	Rs .7 3 ,0 5, 25 , 0 73 /-

The said reconcili ation was rej ected by t he AO as seen on page 62 of t he assess ment order on the ground that the appellant did not hi ghli ght the r el evant credit entri es in the bank account to substantiat e hi s claim of capital acco unt, cash deposited, unsecured loans etc. The AO has no t for a moment stat ed that the appellant did not furnish the bank state ment or the reconciliation stat ement. Onc e t he rec onci liation statement and t he bank stat ement were available w ith the AO, it was improper on t hethe par t of the AO to have rejectedrej ected thet he above stateme ntstat ement simpl ysimply becausebecaus e the corres pondingcorr espo ndingcorr esp onding entri es in the bank acc ountaccount wer ewerewe re not hi ghli ght edhi ghli ghted by thet he app ellant.appellant .appellant. Also, the AO has whil e addi nga ddi ng the above am ountamountamo unt has fail edfailed to a ppreciateappreciate t hattha t on o neone hand he is addi ngadding t hethe unsec ureuns ecur ed loan s hown i nin the above table at Rs.78,75,000/- a ndand at the same time addi ng the same unsec ured l oanl oa n und erunder the thirdthir d addition r egar dingregarding unsec ured l oan, whichwhic h is b ei ngbei ng dealt in detail in thet he subsequent part of thisthi s order while deali ngde alingdealing wit hwi th thet he additi on r elating to uns ec uredunsec ured lo an.loan. The AO has also stat edstated tha tt hatthat wi th re ferenc er efer encereference to appell ant’sap pellant’sappellant ’s claim r egardingrega rdingregarding claim of GSTGS T @ 18% not s hownsho wn i nin the t urnove r,tur nover,turnover, thet he app ellantappellant did not furnishfur nis hfur nish the conci liationconciliati onco nciliation betweenbet ween tur nover ,t ur nover,turnover, rec eiptr ecei pt and GST collected.collect ed. T heThe above contention of AO isi s not co rrectcorr ect as t hethe detai led reconciliation,reconcil iation, a scr eenshotscre ensho tscreenshot of whichwhi ch reproduc edreproduced belo wb elowbe low clearly s hows t hat the s aid rec oncil iatio n was provide d onclearly s hows that the said r econciliation was provided onclearly shows that t he said rec onciliation was provided on a party-wisewis e basis by the ap pell antappellant and the t otaltotal r eceiptrec eiptreceipt o fof Rs.71,37,88,063/- s hown i n t he table belowfully matc hesmatches with thet he headwis ehead wiseheadwi se r eco nci liation,rec onci li ati on,rec onci liation, shownsho wn ini n thet he earlier table:

4.2.3

The appel lantappellant has also provide dpr ovidedprovided a rec onciliationreconciliat ionr econciliat ion bet weenbetwee n thet he t otaltotal entri es made in t hethe boo ksbooks i.e. Rs.73,05,25,073/- vis-a-vis the credit entries in t he bankvis the credit entries in the bank account i.e. Rs.73,47,64,870/- in the followi ngfol lowi ng table wher ei nwhe rei n it isi s clarifiedclari fied t hatthat theret herethe re are t hr eethree creditcredi t e ntriesentriesent ries amounti ngamo unti ng to Rs.30,00,000/-, Rs.2 ,39,800/-and Rs.10,00,000/- i n thet he ba nkbank stat ements tat ementstatement dated 08.07.2022, 12.10.2022 and 04.01.2023, whic hwhich we rewer e actually e nentries mista kenlymistakenlymi stakenly debit eddebited by the bank and was immediat el yimmediately correct edcorr ectedcorrecte d by passi ngp ass ingpassing a cont rac ont racontra cr editcredit entr yentry on the s amesa mesame dat e.date. Si nceSi nc e t hethe e ntri esentri esentries c anc elledcancelledca ncelled eacheac h other out, thet he app ellantappellant did not considerconsi de r it for enteri ngent eri ng i n the bo okbook of account and hence pr ovidedprovided reconcil iationciliation at the first instance only for the amount of Rs.7 3,05,25,073/instanc e only for t he amount o f Rs .7 3,05,25,073/-. Thus, it is seen tha tthat t hethe appel lantappellant has bee nbeen ableabl e t oto r econcilerec oncile t hethe twotw o amounts i.e. to talt otaltotal credi tscredits in t hethe bank accountacco unt vis-a -vis the turnovert urnovertur nov er showns hownsho wn i n the P&L accountacco unt downdow n tot o t he last penny a nd henc e no and henc e no hence no addition isadditi on is called call ed f or for i n this regard.

4.2.4

In vi ew ofo f t hethe above discussion a ndand t hethe reconciliationreconcil iation given by t hethe appellant,appella nt, t histhis gr oundground of appeal is allowe d.”

“4 .3.1 Ground N o. 4, 5 & 6 :- The appellant has challenged the additi on of Rs.1,18,99,755/- u/s 6 8 as unexplained credits. The AO has disallo wed t he above loa n taken fr om 11 par ti es as only 4 of them have filed ITR a nd i n 2 out of 11 cases the appellant c oul d not give any PAN. The AO further stat es that no tice u/s 133(6) was issued to the loan credit ors but none of the m r esponded to the notice. H ence, the A O proc eeded to co ncl ude t hat t he cr edi tworthi ness of none of the loan cre ditors c ould be established and went on to at the above amount.

4.3.2

The ap pel lant o n the other hand has s ubmitte d a detailed chart classi fyi ng the creditors i nto 3 cat egories on the basis of t he na ture of documents submitte d. The chart gi ven below is self -explanatory and duly repres ents the exact st ate of at he e xact stat e of affai rs wi th reference to the submissi onffai rs wi th refere nce to the s ubmissio n of documents regardi ng eac h of the l oan cr editors:of documents r egardi ng eac h o f the l oan cr editors:

4.3.3

So far as t he firs t categoryt he firstthe of 4 loan c redi torsloa n creditor s isloa n creditors concerne d,concerned, thet he appellantappella nt has been able to furnis hfur nishfurnish all t hethe nec essarynecessary doc umentsdocuments requir edrequired for pr ovi ngprovi ngthe credi twort hi ness,cre ditwort hi ness,credit worthi ness , identityidenti ty and genui nenessge nui neness of t hethe l oanloan transaction.transac tion. The bankba nk stat ement,stateme nt,statement, PAN ,PA N, Aadhaar, confirmati on etc. hav e allhave b een s ubmitt edbeen submitted and t herea nd ther e isthere is is no reason t oto disallowdisall ow thet he abov eabove loanloa n j ustjust because t hethe complianc e t o notices u/s 133(6 ) has notcompliance to notices u/s 133(6 ) has not taken place. Thetaken pl ace. The appellant has s ubmitt edsubmitted the c onfirmati onco nfirmati on si gned by eac heach of thet he above parti es and theref ore,t heref ore,the refore, there were no reaso nr easonreason for the AO to disbelieve the genuineness of loan from t hese 4 parti es.

4.3.4

So far as 5 persons i n t he next chart are concer ned, the appellant has furnis hed all t he documents similar to the e arl ier category other than ITR a nd PAN in t he case of the first t wo cr edi tors i.e. Asha and B har dwaj Bart an B handar coul d no t be provi ded. So far as thes e t wo c reditors and the creditor m entione d at serial number 5 are conc erne d i. e. As ha, B hard waj Bartan Bhandar and Sarita, a per usal of the l edger accounts shows t hat t he outst anding balance in these thr ee cases are only t he openi ng balance and no fresh l oa n was t aken from t he said credit ors in the current FY. In vi e w of t hi s, no additi on can be made for the se thr ee loans i n t he impugned assessment year and if a t all such additi on was to be made the same coul d hav e be en made onl y i n t he concer ned FY whe n the loan was ac cepted fro m these two persons. In this t able t wo loans taken from Brij Mohan and Munni D evi are pertai ni ng to thi s FY and for the same reaso ns as mentioned i n par a 4.3 .3 t he AO should not have disallo wed the above two loans just becaus e t he compliance to noti ces u/s 133(6) has not taken place .

4.3.5

S o far a s t he las t cat egory of loan accepted from Laxmi Devi and Sangeeta Gupta are concerned, the appellant has neit her bee n a ble to file PAN, aadhar card , bank statement or ITR i n the cas e o f these t wo persons . The only docum ent filed by the appellant is a ledger account of t hese persons as existi ng i n the books of t he appellant. Thus, I a gree with t he sta nd of the AO t hat the appellant has not been abl e to pr ove the genui neness , identity and cr editwort hi ness of these loans. Accordi ngly, out o f the total addition of Rs .1,18,99,756/- a n addition of Rs.5,00,000/- is s ust ained and the bal ance is deleted. The ref ore, this ground of appeal is partly allo wed.”