PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM These cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue emanates from the order of the learned CIT(A)-I, Indore, dated 30.6.2014.

2. The assessee is a company incorporated on 31 st July, 2007 and engaged in the business of handling transportation, lifting and placing various mobile towers, etc. since incorporation. The return of income was filed declaring income at Rs.9,77,596/-. In the assessees appeal the only ground is against sustaining addition of Rs.15,49,118/- made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The grounds of appeal read as under :-

The learned CIT(A)-I, Indore, was wrong in confirming the addition of Rs.1549118/- made by the Assessing M/s Reliable Express Logisys P. Ltd ITA Nos. 540 & 541/Ind/2014 3 Officer on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of Income tax act on the ground of applicant was unable to prove the creditworthiness of the lender. Where there is no reason why the cash credit should not be accepted as genuine. The addition of cash credit is bad in law.

3. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Mrs. Purnima Tiwari has advanced unsecured loan of Rs. 15 lakhs by account payee cheques. She is assessed to tax since 1987-88. During the assessment as well as in appeal proceedings, the documents relating to the creditor Mrs. Purnima Tiwari like confirmation, PAN Card, copy of ITR, computation of income, capital account and balance sheet and also the letter from the depositor to explain the source of deposit were filed. Copy of the bank statement, ledger account of the assessee in her (creditor) books of accounts were also filed. In addition to this, bank statements of the assessee M/s Reliable Express Logisys P. Ltd ITA Nos. 540 & 541/Ind/2014 4 for the relevant period was also submitted. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that all these documents clearly establish identity beyond any doubt, also the genuineness of transaction and credit worthiness of Mrs. Purnima Tiwari. He pleaded that the depositor Smt. Purnima Tiwari is running a furniture show room in the name of Oliver Furniture since last 10 years at MG Road, which is the main business area of the city. She also declared taxable income of Rs.7,48,934/- during the relevant period. She was having a capital of Rs.19,72,350/- . The depositor Smt. Purnima Tiwari has also taken loans from various banks. As on 31.3.2010 such loan was outstanding at Rs.1,72,00,000/-. All these evidences prove that she has credit worthiness and also the transaction was genuine. The depositor Smt. Tiwari has capacity to pay the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs to the assessee. The transaction is through depositors bank account which M/s Reliable Express Logisys P. Ltd ITA Nos. 540 & 541/Ind/2014 5 clearly establish the genuineness of the transaction. He further submitted that the depositor herself has also explained the source of the source from where she has received the amount which ultimately was advanced to the assessee. As per her statement, she has received Rs. 5 lakhs each from Naveen Juneja on 9.12.2009 and on

21.12.2009. She also received Rs. 5 lakhs from Sunil Jeneja on 8.1.2010. All these amounts were received through account payee cheques. She has issued the cheques to the assessee. The depositor herself is engaged in the business and having sufficient cash balance in hand as on 31 st March, 2010. All these facts have not been properly appreciated by the revenue authorities and he submitted that the assessee has paid interest of Rs.54,575/- and deducted TDS of Rs.5458/- which further establish the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to issue summons u/s 131 M/s Reliable Express Logisys P. Ltd ITA Nos. 540 & 541/Ind/2014 6 of the Act to verify the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor but the Assessing Officer did not act on the assessees request. Finally the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has discharged his onus casted u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore, no addition is called for. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

4. We have heard both the sides. The assessee has received the loan of Rs.15 lakhs from Smt. Purnima Tiwari. She was assessed to tax since 1987-88. She has given confirmation letter. She has PAN and also filed income tax returns. The computation of income, capital account and balance sheet were also submitted. The assessee has also submitted copy of her bank account fromwhere the assessee received the amount. The source of source was also explained. The assessee has paid interest and deducted TDS which is duly reflected in Form 26AS. The M/s Reliable Express Logisys P. Ltd ITA Nos. 540 & 541/Ind/2014 7 depositor is engaged in the business since long. The assessee also requested the Assessing Officer to issue summons to depositor but he did not act on the request of the assessee. All these facts cumulatively show that the assessee was able to discharge the onus placed upon it in terms of section 68 of the Act. The assessee has established the identity of the depositor. The assessee has also established the genuineness of the transaction. Further the assessee has also been able to submit sufficient material which establish the creditworthiness of the depositor. In view of these cumulative factors, we find no justification in sustaining the addition and delete the same.

5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

6. In the revenues appeal in ground nos. 1 and 2 the issue involved is against deleting the addition of M/s Reliable Express Logisys P. Ltd ITA Nos. 540 & 541/Ind/2014 8 Rs.50,58,257/- made on account of receipts not recorded in the books of accounts.

7. Before us it was submitted that the Assessing Officers contention regarding not recording the receipts of Rs.50,58,257/- in the books of accounts is completely wrong. The assessee furnished complete details and explained the same also. The Assessing Officer could have verified the same from the books of accounts produced before him. The Assessing Officer never asked the assessee to reconcile or to explain any difference in the receipt from Form No. 26AS and hurriedly made the addition. The learned CIT(A) verified the record and made appropriate order. The learned CIT(A) has granted relief by holding as under :-

4. I have seen the assessment order, the grounds of appeal and submissions of appellants. M/s Reliable Express Logisys P. Ltd ITA Nos. 540 & 541/Ind/2014 9

5. The first ground of appeal is against addition ofRs.51,18,971/- which was added by A.O. on account of receipts not being recorded in books. Accordingly to A.O. total receipts shown in profit & loss account was only Rs.4,89,35,480/- (out of which transportation & hosting receipt is Rs.4,88,16,984/-) whereas as per form 26AS of the company total receipts were Rs.5,40,59,451/-. The A.O. added difference of these two amounts in absence of justification of the difference.

5.1 Before the undersigned appellant submitted that as per accounting principle laid down by ICAI following is the extract sales register shown by the computer system & entry recorded in books of appellant :- Total gross receipts Rs.5,39,93,738/- Less : Service Tax show separately Rs. 24,60,293/- Escort charges shown separately Rs.16,92,767/- Handling charges written back Rs. 5,49,743/- M/s Reliable Express Logisys P. Ltd ITA Nos. 540 & 541/Ind/2014 10 Transportation charges Written back Rs.4,73,951/- Rs.51,76,754/- Net receipts Rs.4,88,16,984

5.2 Both service tax and escort charges on net basis are shown separately in profit and loss a/c. Copy of ledger a/learned CIT(A) of handling charge written back & transportation charges written back is also furnished. Appellant has itself admitted an unexplained difference of Rs.60,714/- in the figures of sales which aas per books of accounts are Rs.5,39,93,738/- & as per form no. 26AS they are Rs.5,40,54,452/-. Hence out of addition of Rs.51,18,971/- only addition ofRs.60,714/- is sustained & balance addition is deleted. As a result Ground. No. 1 of appeal is partly allowed.

8. After hearing both the sides, we find that the learned CIT(A) has rightly granted part relief to the assessee as both service tax and escort charges were shown separately in the profit and loss account on net basis. The learned DR M/s Reliable Express Logisys P. Ltd ITA Nos. 540 & 541/Ind/2014 11 failed to controvert the findings of the learned CIT(A). We, therefore, sustain the same.

9. In ground nos. 3 and 4 the issue raised is against deleting the disallowance of Rs.37,24,120/-made on account of disallowance out of certain expenses on the basis of discrepancies found therein.

10. We have heard both the sides. The learned CIT(A) granted the relief to the assessee by holding as under :-

7. Third ground of appeal is against addition ofRs.2,20,775/- from cartage & coolie expenses and Rs.15,79,120/- from hosting & handling expenses, on percentage basis, on the ground of genuineness of expenses.

8. Appellant is into business of handling, transportation lifting & placing various mobile towers, plant & machinery, telephone exchange M/s Reliable Express Logisys P. Ltd ITA Nos. 540 & 541/Ind/2014 12 etc. of Idea Cellular. In this business both cartage & Coolie expenses and hosting & handling charges are essential components of business of appellant. A.O. has disallowed a percentage of such expenses on the ground that most of these expenses have been incurred in cash and the vouchers have been prepared in one hand writing. Both of such observation were found incorrect because while such amounts were expended both by cash & cheque, the vouchers were prepared by computers & hand written vouchers were in many hand writings. Entries on each voucher are narrative which includes transaction detail, type of work & L.R. No. of each transaction. Payment to appellant in released by Idea cellular only after verification of work done as appearing in such vouchers. M/s Reliable Express Logisys P. Ltd ITA Nos. 540 & 541/Ind/2014 13 When books of accounts of appellant wereduly audited & A.O. failed to find any defects in detailed vouchers maintained by appellant, hence adhoc disallowance as percentage of such expenses is not at all justified & the disallowance of Rs.2,20,775/- and s.15,79,120/- out of such expenses, is hereby deleted. Ground No. 3 of appeal is allowed.

11. The learned CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee on the ground that the vouchers prepared by computers and hand-writing and the entries made therein were narrative. The learned DR failed to controvert the findings of the learned CIT(A) with any positive evidence contrary to that. Considering all these facts, we sustain the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss this ground. M/s Reliable Express Logisys P. Ltd ITA Nos. 540 & 541/Ind/2014 14

12. Since Ground nos. 5 and 6 were not pressed by the learned DR at the time of hearing, therefore, the same are dismissed as such. 13 In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Pronounced in open Court on 8 th December, 2015 Sd/- sd/- (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 8 th December, 2015 Dn/-