IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. No: 954/AHD/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Dipakkumar V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward- Sobhagmal Mehta 601, 7 (2), Ahmedabad Ashwamegh Apartment Parle Point, Athwalines Surat (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ACRPM0530G Appellant by : Shri Rasesh Shah Respondent by : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R. ORDER Date of hearing : 30 -09-2016 Date of Pronouncement : 30 -09-2016 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. With this appeal, Assessee has challenged correctness of order of Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Surat dated 22.01.2014 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10. 2 ITA No. 954/Ahd/2014 . A.Y. 2009-10 2. sole grievance of assessee is that ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming action of A.O. in making addition of Rs. 11,01,844/- by treating creditors as bogus. 3. For year under consideration, assessee has filed his return of income on 30.01.2010 declaring taxable income at Rs. 3,80,505/- which included income from capital gains, income from house property and income from other sources. 4. During course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, A.O. found credit balances in name of Shri Dipak S. Mehta, Levis, Sagar Export and Mehta Corporation totaling to Rs. 11,01,844/-. assessee was asked to prove genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of creditors. assessee filed confirmations from respective parties but no contra confirmation was furnished. A.O. observed that it is set law that onus lies on assessee to prove genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of creditors. Taking leaf out of this legal position, A.O. treated Rs. 11,01,844/- as bogus credit and added to total income of assessee. 5. Assessee carried matter before ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 6. Before us, ld. counsel for assessee vehemently stated that provisions of Section 68 do not apply on facts of case. Per contra, ld. D.R. strongly supported findings of revenue authorities. 3 ITA No. 954/Ahd/2014 . A.Y. 2009-10 7. We have carefully considered orders of authorities below. We have also given thoughtful consideration to relevant documentary evidences brought on record in form of paper book. careful perusal of copy of account of impugned four parties show that all credit balances are brought forward balances from earlier years. Since, all credit balances are opening balances, in our understanding of law; provisions of Section 68 do not apply. We, accordingly, set aside findings of ld. CIT(A) and direct A.O. to delete addition of Rs. 11,01,844/-. 8. In result, appeal filed by Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 30 - 09- 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: True Copy Rajesh Copy of Order forwarded to:- 1. Appellant. 2. Respondent. 3. CIT (Appeals) 4. CIT concerned. 5. DR., ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. Guard File. By ORDER Deputy/Asstt.Registrar ITAT,Ahmedabad Dipakkumar Sobhagmal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Ahmedabad