Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Arun Kumar Jain on 26 June, 1995
13. During the course of hearing, ld D.R. relied on remand report of AO to support
the grounds of appeal taken by department for both the assessment years under
consideration. On the other hand, ld A.R. submitted that ld CIT(A) has given detailed
reasoning after considering the submissions of the assessee and report in assessment
year 2003-04 which are also applicable for A.Y. 2006-07 as the facts and reasoning
9 ITA Nos.4635 & 4436/Mum/2011
Assessment Years: 2006 -07 & 2003-04
given by the AO for making the disallowances are same. He further submitted that AO
issued summons u/s.131 of the Act and two partly namely, Shri Narayan Salunke and
Shri Kripal Singh appeared before the AO and their statements were recorded. He
further submitted that Shri Arun Shetty could not appear before the AO as he had
expired in June, 2006. AO disbelieved the genuineness of expenditure merely because
his records were not available with the Income tax Department. He submitted that the
reasons given by the AO have been dealt with by ld CIT(A) while deleting the
disallowance made by the AO in detail and, therefore, the orders of ld CIT(A) be
confirmed. He further submitted that as per decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court in the case of CIT vs. Sanjheev Kumar Jain, 310 ITR 178 (P&H), onus is on the
department to prove that the expenditure is not genuine when assessee had proved the
genuineness of aforesaid parties.