Briefly stated facts are that this is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round, the assessee had challenged the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act while the disallowance has been confirmed by the CIT(A). In the earlier round, this Tribunal vide its order dated 27.02.2009 in ITA No.3865/Ahd/2004 had restored the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh. The Assessing Officer in pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal yet again confirmed the addition on the ground that the assessee did not furnish the current address of the depositors. The addition so made was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Now the assessee is further in appeal before us.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities below were not justified in making addition and confirming the same. He submitted that the action of the authorities below is contrary to the settled law. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the assessee-company had accepted the deposits, apart from others, from one Mr. Rohit Maru and Mr. Utpal Maru of Rs.1,00,000/- each as fixed deposit. He submitted that on maturity of the fixed deposit the amount was repaid to the concerned parties. He further submitted that the deposits were accepted by way of account payee cheque No. 390825 dated 26.11.2000 of Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Mithakhali Brnach, Ahmedabad from Mr. Rohit Maru and a similar amount of cheuqe No.290824 dated 26.11.2000 drawn on Central Bank of India, Mithakhali Branch, Ahmedabad from Mr. Utpal Maru. He submitted that the Permanent Account Numbers (PAN) of both the parties were given. He drew our attention to page No. 32 of the paper-book in this regard, wherein the PAN of Shri Rohit I. Maru and Utpal R. Maru is given and both of them are stated to be assessed at ITO 23(1), Mumbai and ITO 46(1), New Delhi respectively. The ld. Counsel submitted that under these facts the Assessing Officer ought not to have made addition without making enquiry from the concerned parties. In support of his contention, the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji, reported in  42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj.).
On the contrary, ld. Departmental Representative has supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the Assessing Officer has called for certain details in order to verify the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the depositors; but the assessee failed to furnish the same. Therefore, the authorities below were justified in sustaining the addition.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the transactions have been routed through the banking channel. The assessee has furnished Permanent Account Numbers (PAN) of the concerned parties. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation given by the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish the current address of the concerned depositors and also the notices could not be served as per the Inspector’s Report. It was stated that the concerned parties did not reside on the given address for the last 4-5 years. We find that at page No.30 of the paper-book the assessee has furnished the ledger account of the depositors. As per this, the depositors’ deposits were accepted on 27.11.2000. As per the application form for fixed deposit, which is placed on record at page No.28 of the paper-book, the period of deposit was for 12 months, starting from 26.11.2000 and the same was required to be repaid before November 2001. As per Inspector’s Report, the concerned depositors were not residing at the given address for 4-5 years from the date of making inquiry, i.e., in the year 2010. Therefore, in our considered view, when the assessee had furnished the PAN of the concerned depositors, the Assessing Officer ought to have made inquiry from the jurisdictional Assessing Officers to find out the current address of the depositors. Therefore, after considering the totality of the facts and more particularly under the facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition. Hence, we hereby direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.