This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), Alwar dated 02.05.2013 for the A.Y. 2009-10. The grounds of appeal states as under :- That the ld. AO has seriously erred by treating unsecured loan of Rs. 1,03,450/- and Rs. 1,05,673/- taken from Smt. Bhagwan Devi and Smt. Sunita Devi as undisclosed investment and added Rs. 2,09,123/- in the income of the assessee.

2. Brief facts of the case as noted in the assessment order is that the assessee raised unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 14,09,123/- from the following persons :- ITA No. 636/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. Shri Umesh Kumar Garg vs. ITO. Roshan Lal Radhey Shyam Badi Rs. 4,50,000/- Smt. Bhagwan Devi Garg, Badi Rs. 1,03,450/- Smt. Meera Devi Badi Rs. 7,50,000/- Smt. Sunita Devi Rs. 1,05,673/- ----------------- Rs.14,09,123/- ----------------- The assessee was required to furnish the confirmation from these creditors. However, no confirmations from these creditors have been furnished. Though the assessee has furnished the copies of bank accounts of Shri Roshan Lal Radhey Shyam Badi and Smt. Bhagwan Devi Garg Badi but no bank accounts have been furnished in respect of other two creditors. The AO noticed that even in the bank accounts furnished in respect of Shri Roshan Lal Radhey Shyam Badi and Smt. Bhagwan Devi Garg, the payments in these bank accounts have been either deposited in cash or through transfer on the very same day before one/two days prior to the transferring of money to the bank account of the assessee. On the basis of these facts, the AO has treated the unsecured loans of Rs. 14,09,123/- as unverified and accordingly treated the same as income of the assessee.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT (A). Before ld. CIT (A), the assessee filed additional evidences in respect of all the four cash creditors. The ld. CIT (A) has called the remand report from the AO. The AO in his remand report has mentioned as under :- ITA No. 636/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. Shri Umesh Kumar Garg vs. ITO. vkids i= ekad 1379 fnuakd 01-10-2012 ds lanHkZ pkgh x;h fjiksZV izLrqr gSA fu/kkZjrh ds fu/kkZj.k ds nkSjku 1 jksku yky jk/ks;ke ckMh] 2 Jhefr Hkxorh nsoh 3 Jherh js[kk nsoh rFkk Jherh lqfurk nsoh us dtZ ds :i esa 1409123 ysuk nkkZ;k gS bu pkjks dtZ ysus okyksa dks mudh vk; ls lEcfU/kr ys[kk cfg;ksa] cSad [kkrks ds lkFk mifLFkr gksus ds muds izkf/kd`r izfrfuf/k dks Hkh dgk x;k Fkk ysfdu mifLFkr ugh gksus o lEcf/kr iw.kZ ys[kk iqLrdks o vk; ds mfpr izek.k o dtZ nsus dh {kerk ds vHkko esa ;g fy;s x;s dtZ dks vk; ds :i esa tksMdj fu/kkZj.k fd;k gSA Jheku th vkids vknskkuqlkj eSusa mijksDr fu/kkZfjrh ds ekeys esa fukkZj.k ds nkSjku tksMs x;s izfrHkwfr iw.kZ _.k tks :i;s 1409123@& tks fd 1- Jh jksku yky jk/ks;ke] ckMh 2- Jherh Hkxorh nsoh 3- Jherh js[kk nsoh 4- Jherh lqfurk nsoh bu pkjks ls ysuk nkkZ;k Fkk bu lHkh dks /kkjk 131 ds rgr lEeu nsdj rFkk Jherh Hkxorh nsoh mez 70 lky ,d cqtqxZ eghyk rFkk vU; nks Hkh eghyk gksus ds dkj.k vkus esa vlqfo/kk gksus ds dkj.k okMZ fujh{kd Jh ch- ,l-eh.kk dks Hkstk x;k Fkk ftlus /kkjk 131 ds rgr c;ku ntZ dj o lEcf/kr izfrHkwfr jfgr _.k ds lHkh isilZ ds fy;s vk/kkj ij fjiksZV izLrqr djds crk;k gS fd 1- eSa- jksku yky jk/ks;ke izks- xksiky nkl xxZ] ckMh us vius c;kuks esa Jh mesk dqekj xxZ] dks fofHkUu rkjh[kksa esa pSd }kjk :i;s 4-50 yk[k pSd }kjk nsuk crk;k gS tks c;kuks o isilZ ds vk/kkj ij mfpr izfrr gksrk gSA 2- Jherh Hkxorh nsoh %& Jherh Hkxorh nsoh ifRu ckMh us vius c;kuksa esa Jh mesk dqekj xxZ] dks fofHkUu rkjh[kksa esa pSd }kjk :i;s 1-00 yk[k pSd }kjk nsuk crk;k gS tks c;kuks o isilZ ds vk/kkj ij mfpr izfrr gksrk gSA 3- Jherh lqfurk nsoh ifRu Jh mesk dqekj xxZ ds c;kuks o lEcf/kr isilZ o fujh{kd dh fjiksZV ds vk/kkj ij fn;k x;k _.k lgh o mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA 4- Jherh ehjk nsoh ifrUr Jh xksiky nkl xxZ] ckMh ds c;kuks o lEcfu/kr isilZ o fujh{kd dh fjiksZV ds vk/kkj ij fn;k x;k _.k lgh o mfpr izfrr gksrk gSA fu/kkZj.k ds nkSjku lEcf/kr O;fDr;ksa dks izLrqr ugh djus o mfpr isilZ izLrqr ugh djus ds dkj.k fu/kkZjrh dh vk; esa tksM+k x;k Fkk mfpr dk;Zokgh ds fy;s vkids voyksdukFkZ fjiksZV izLrqr gSA layXu %& c;kuks dh izfrfyfi o okMZ fujh{kd dh fjiksZV gSA Hkonh; ITA No. 636/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. Shri Umesh Kumar Garg vs. ITO. The ld. CIT (A), after recording the reasons, have accepted the loans given by Shri Roshan Lal Radhey Shyam Badi and Smt. Meera Devi. However, the ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in respect of Smt. Bhagwan Devi and Smt. Sunita Devi. The order of ld. CIT (A) in respect of Smt. Bhagwan Devi and Smt. Sunita Devi are reproduced as under :- Jherh Hkxoku nsoh ls :i;s 1 yk[k dk _.k fy;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa vihykFkhZ }kjk _.knkrk dk duQjesku ,oa kiFk i= fn;k x;k gS ftlesa crk;k x;k gS fd muds }kjk :i;s 1 yk[k fnuakd 23-01-2009 dks vkj-Vh-th-,l }kjk vihykFkhZ ds cSad esa VkalQj fd;k x;k gSA _.knkrk }kjk vk;dj fujh{kd dks crk;k x;k gS fd ;g jkfk muds }kjk fdjk;s dh vkenuh ,oa fofHkUu voljska ij izkIr migkj ls gSA _.knkrk dks dksbZ iSu uEcj ughaj gS vkSj u gh dksbZ vk;dj fooj.kh nkf[ky dh tkrh gSA muds }kjk crk;k x;k fd foRrh; okZ 08&09 esa :i;s 55&60 gtkj fdjk;s dh vkenuh ls izkIr gq,A _.knkrk vihykFkhZ dh eka gS vkSj fdjk;s ls vkenuh ,oa vU; migkj vkfn ds ckjs esa dksbZ lk{; ;k Bksl izek.k izLrqr ugh fd;k gS ftlls :i;s 1 yk[k _.k nsus dh mudh {kerk LiV gks ldsA vr% mDr _.k dks vLiVhd`r _.k ekuk tkrk gS vkSj bl laca/k esa C;kt lfgr :i;s 103450@& ds tksM+ dks dk;e j[kk tkrk gSA Jherh lqfurk nsoh ls :i;s 99000@& dk _.k fy;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa vihykFkhZ }kjk _.knkrk dk duQjesku] iSu dkMZ dh dkWih cSad LVsVesaV ,o kiFk i= fn;k x;k gS ftlesa crk;k x;k gS fd muds }kjk :i;s 19000@& uxn fnuakd 15-04- 2008 dks ,o :i;s 30000@& fnuakd 02-01-2009 ,oa :i;s 50000@& fnuakd 15-01-2009 dks pSd }kjk vihykFkhZ dks _.k fn;k x;k gSA cSad [kkrs ls LiV gS fd _.knkrk }kjk fnuakd 22-12-2008 dks :i;s 30000@& uxn tek fd;k x;k gS ftlls 02-01-09 dks :i;s 30000@& _.k nsuk crk;k x;k gS blh izdkj fnuakd 07-01-09] 09-01-09 ,oa 15-01- 09 dks _.knkrk }kjk vius cSad [kkrs esa ek% :i;s 18000@&] :i;s 17000@& ,oa :i;s 18000@& uxn tek fd;k x;k gS ftls fnuakd 15-01-09 dks :i;s 50000@& dk _.k fn;k x;k gSA As the ld. CIT (A) has not accepted the loans in respect of Smt. Bhagwan Devi and Smt. Sunita Devi, he confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,09,123/- to the income of the assessee. ITA No. 636/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. Shri Umesh Kumar Garg vs. ITO.

4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A), the assessee preferred appeal before us. The ld. A/R of the assessee has stated in respect of both the creditors that confirmations, affidavits and bank statements were filed before ld. CIT (A) in remand proceedings. The Inspector has recorded the statement of both the creditors during the remand proceedings and has accepted that they have given the loans to the assessee out of their rental income and amount received in gifts. In fact, it was also contended that Smt. Bhagwan Devi is the mother of the assessee and Smt. Sunita Devi is the wife of the assessee. Thereafter it was contended that once Smt. Bhagwan Devi and Smt. Sunita Devi have accepted in their statements giving of the amount by way of loan, the amount and the source of loan has been duly explained by the assessee. Therefore, as per the assessee the amount cannot be treated as unexplained. The assessee, for the purpose of supporting his contention, placed reliance on the judgements of the Honble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT, 217 CTR 354 (Raj.), Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO, 187 Taxman 338 (Raj.), Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO, 189 Taxman 141 (Raj.) and CIT vs. H.S. Builders (P) Ltd., 78 DTR 169 (Raj.), CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal, (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj.) On the basis of above said judgments, the ld. A/R submitted that the addition of Rs. 2,09,123/- is required to be deleted.

5. Per contra, the ld. D/R supported the order of ld. CIT (A) and relied upon the order passed by the AO.

6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that in the remand report the AO has accepted the genuineness of the loans ITA No. 636/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. Shri Umesh Kumar Garg vs. ITO. taken from Smt. Bhagwan Devi and Smt. Sunita Devi. In the remand report it was mentioned as under :- 1 Jherh Hkxorh nsoh %& Jherh Hkxorh nsoh ifRu ckMh us vius c;kuska esa Jh mesk dqekj xxZ dks fofHkUu rkjh[ksa esa pSd }kjk :i;s 4-50 yk[k pSd }kjk nsuk crk;k gS tks c;kuks o isilZ ds vk/kkj ij mfpr izfrr gksrk gSA 2 Jherh lqfurk nsoh ifRu Jh mesk dqekj xxZ ds c;kukas o lEcf/kr isilZ o fujh{kd dh fjiksZV ds vk/kkj ij fn;k x;k +_.k lgh o mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA In the statement recorded before the Inspector, the said Smt. Bhagwan Devi and Smt. Sunita Devi have disclosed that the money given to the assessee belongs to them. The Honble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT (supra) has held as under :-

While it is the assessees burden to furnish the explanation relating to cash credits, the assessees burden does not extend beyond proving the existence of the creditor and further proving that such creditor owns to have advanced the amount credited in the account of assessee. However, the burden does not go beyond to put the assessee under an obligation to further prove as to wherefrom the creditor has got or procured the money to be deposited or advanced to the assessee. The explanation furnished by the creditor about the source from where he procured the money to be deposited or advanced to the assessee, is not relevant for the purpose of rejecting the explanation furnished by the assessee and making additions of such deposits as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources by invoking section 68 unless it can be shown by the department that the source of such moneys come from the assessee himself or such source could be traced to the assessee itself. In the present case, while the existence of the creditor is not in doubt & he has admitted to have ITA No. 636/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. Shri Umesh Kumar Garg vs. ITO. advance the loan to the assessee, the fact that the explanation furnished by the creditor about his source of such advancement has not been accepted by the revenue authority cannot lead to any presumption that the source of such advancement by creditor emanated from the assessee. Therefore, the addition in the income of the assessee as cash credit cannot be sustained.

Similar is the finding in respect of other judgements referred by the assessee. In our opinion, once the assessee has explained the genuineness of the transaction, identity of the source and the source i.e. Smt. Bhagwan Devi and Smt. Sunita Devi have accepted that they have given the loan, assessee has discharged his onus of proving the creditworthiness and we do not find any merit in the order of ld. CIT (A) in sustaining the addition. Therefore, we delete the addition in reference i.e. in respect of Smt. Bhagwan Devi and Smt. Sunita Devi, thereby setting aside the order of ld. CIT (A).

7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/12/2015. Sd/- Sd/- Vh-vkj-ehuk yfyr dqekj (T.R. Meena) (Laliet Kumar) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 16/12/2015 Das/ ITA No. 636/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. Shri Umesh Kumar Garg vs. ITO. vknsk dh izfrfyfi vxzsfkr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Umesh Kumar Garg, Dholpur.

2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO Ward -3, Bharatpur.

3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT

4. vk;dj vk;qDrvihy@The CIT(A)

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

6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 636/JP/2013) vknskkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar ITA No. 636/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. Shri Umesh Kumar Garg vs. ITO.