PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee arising from the order of ld. CIT (A), Kota dated 17.02.2014 and the grounds raised are reproduced below :-

1. That the authorities below has grossly erred in law and facts in making/confirming addition of Rs. 7,95,450/- on account of cash credit u/s 68 in the name of Shri Ali Mohd. Khan and Smt. Shahnaz parveen without any positive evidence, whereas the assessee has discharged her burden by placing relevant evidences.

2. That the authorities below has grossly erred in law and facts in making/confirming disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 50,450/- and made/confirmed the addition of such mount on account of cash credit u/s 68 without any basis. ITA No. 368/JP/2014 Dr. Shabana Khan vs. ITO

2. On the date of hearing, an adjournment application was moved. However, considering the issue is trifle in nature, hence rejected.

3. The ld. D/R Shri Raj Mehra, JCIT is present who has placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below.

4. The facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated 30.11.2011 were that the assessee in individual capacity is in medical profession. As a Doctor, the appellant is engaged in medical practice with S.K. Hospital and Research Centre. The short issue is in respect of the unsecured loan in the name of one Shri Ali Bhai amounting to Rs. 3,95,000/- and the other amount of unsecured loan in the name of Smt. Shahnaz Parveen amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/-.

4.1. In respect of Shri Ali Bhai, a statement was recorded wherein he has confirmed that the amount in question was paid through cheque from his bank account. He has explained his source as a Manager of S.K. Hospital. He has informed that his sources of income were salary as well as income from X-ray machine owned by him. The AO has disbelieved the said explanation and taxed the amount by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act.

4.2. In respect of Smt. Shahnaz Parveen, mother of the assessee, in her statement recorded by the AO, she has confirmed that the amount in question was advanced through a bank demand draft. She has informed that earlier she was having tuition income but when the statement was recorded she has told the AO that she was not doing any work, however, out of her past savings the said amount was advanced to the ITA No. 368/JP/2014 Dr. Shabana Khan vs. ITO assessee. The AO has turned down the said explanation and taxed the amount in the hands of the assessee.

5. When the matter was carried before the first appellate authority, the ld. CIT (A) has affirmed the addition.

6. On careful examination of the facts of the case, it is worth to mention that preliminary onus has been discharged by the assessee to the extent that the identity of both the persons was established by producing them before the AO. Secondly, the genuineness of the transaction has also been established by producing the details of bank transaction through which the loan amount was transferred in the account of the assessee. As far as these two conditions are concerned, I have noted that the revenue authorities have not raised any specific objection. The only reason for the impugned addition was alleged to be the financial capacity of those creditors. It is worth to mention that both of them are known to the assessee and they have come forward to furnish their statement confirming the amount advanced to the assessee. It is also worth to mention that one of the cash creditors, namely, Smt. Shahnaz Parveen is the mother of the assessee. It is also worth to mention that Shri Ali Bhai happened to be the Manager of the Hospital run by the assessees husband. Therefore, in a situation when both the persons have their independent resources, then whether it was justifiable on the part of the AO to invoke the deemed provisions and presume that the amounts in question was the deemed income of the assessee. In my considered opinion, the onus had shifted upon the AO and it was expected to place on record something more than merely presuming that the amounts in question was allegedly the ITA No. 368/JP/2014 Dr. Shabana Khan vs. ITO deemed income of the assessee. I, therefore, inter alia, hold that the explanation of the assessee was bonafide and the action of the AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law. I, therefore, direct to delete the additions.

7. In the result, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/03/2016. Sd/- eqdqy ds-Jkor (Mukul K. Shrawat) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 04/03/2016. Das/ vknsk dh izfrfyfi vxzsf"kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Dr. Shabana Khan, Jhalawar.

2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO Jhalawar.

3. vk;dj vk;qDrvihy@ CIT(A).

4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT,

5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur

6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.368/JP/2014) vknskkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar ITA No. 368/JP/2014 Dr. Shabana Khan vs. ITO