IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.100/CTK/2015 Assess ment Year :2009-2010 Alekh Kumar Pradhan, Pragyan Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Paradeep. Machinery, AT: New Bus Stand, Kendrapara. PAN/GI R No. AHDPP 7019 C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty Revenue by : Shri Arun Kumar Mohanty : Date of Hearing : 07 /10/ 2016 Date of Pronouncement : 07 /10/ 2016 ORDER This appeal of assessee was decided by Tribunal vide its order dated 12.1.2016 passed in ITA No.100/CTK/2015, wherein, Tribunal deleted addition of Rs.11,65,000/- on account of unexplained credit and with regard to unexplained credit of Rs.9,19,153/-, matter was restored back to file of AO for deciding same afresh. 2. Thereafter, assessee filed Miscellaneous application being M.A. No.01/CTK/2016, wherein, assessee stated that ld CIT(A) had deleted addition of Rs.9,19,153/- on account of unexplained credit as discrepancy detected during course of assessment proceedings got reconciled and explained. This issue was not subject matter of appeal before Tribunal and, therefore, there was apparent error in order of Tribunal in restoring this issue to file of AO for deciding same afresh. 2 I.T.A. No.100/CTK/2015 s s es s m e n t Y e r : 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 0 3. Tribunal vide its order dated 8.8.2016 passed in M.A.No.01/CTK/2016 recalled entire order dated 12.1.2016 passed in ITA No.100/CTK/2015 and directed registry to fix case for hearing. Hence, this appeal before me. 4. first issue in this appeal relates to addition of rs.11,65,000/- as unexplained credit. 5. Tribunal in its order dated 12.1.2016 held as under: Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that-the assessee carries on business of dealing in branded tractors and its spare parts. During previous year assessee had turnover of Rs. 196.05 lakhs. accounts of assessee are audited u/s.44AB of Income Tax Act showing net profit of Rs.4,86,728/-. During course of assessment AO made addition of Rs.11,65,000/- on account of unexplained loans. By impugned order, ld CIT(A) sustained addition so made by AO. Against which assessee is in further appeal before us. We have considered rival contentions and found from record that assessee deals with agricultural implement and had taken loan from his known people who are also having agricultural income as their only source of income. assessee had further confirmation affidavit and voter ID of all loan creditors in order to substantiate the4 identity, genuineness of transaction and during remand proceedings AO had recorded statement in respect of all loan creditors, however, mentioned that since no bank accounts or cash book could be furnished creditworthiness of creditors could not be examined. assessee is agriculturist and all loan creditors have source of income from agriculture. We also found that CIT (A) called remand report with regard to loan taken by assessee. assessee has furnished 3 I.T.A. No.100/CTK/2015 s s es s m e n t Y e r : 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 0 confirmation, affidavit and voter ID of creditors in order to substantiate identity and genuineness of transaction during remand proceedings. All creditors appeared before AO and AO has recorded their statement. However, creditors were not accepted merely on plea that no bank account or cash book could be furnished, therefore, creditworthiness of creditors could be examined. We found that creditors were agriculturist they are not maintaining their books of account. None was having bank account, therefore, declining of creditors on plea of having not submitted cash book and bank account is not correct. As per finding recorded during remand proceedings with regard to each creditor, we are of considered view that assessee has discharged its owns to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of loan transactions. Accordingly, we direct AO to delete addition made on account of loan creditors. 6. Following same order, I allow this ground of appeal. 7. second issue relates to unexplained credit of Rs.9,19,153/-. 8. I find that ld CIT(A) vide his order dated 29.1.2015 passed in I.T. Appeal No.554/2011-12 has deleted addition. Thus, there is no grievance against order of ld CIT(A) to assessee. Therefore, this part of ground of appeal is dismissed as infructuous. 9. In result, appeal filed by assessee allowed Order pronounced in open court on 07 /10/2016 in presence of parties. Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 07 /10 /2016 4 I.T.A. No.100/CTK/2015 s s es s m e n t Y e r : 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 0 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant : Alekh Kumar Pradhan, Pragyan Machinery, AT: New Bus Stand, Kendrapara 2. Respondent. ITO, Ward-2, Paradeep. 3. CIT(A), Cuttack 4. CIT , Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, Cuttack Alekh Kumar Pradhan v. ITO, Ward-2, Paradeep