9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of bogus loans and addition to income. 2. Reliance on third-party statements and documents. 3. Failure to produce depositors and the genuineness of loans. Summary: Issue 1: Confirmation of bogus loans and addition to income The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the learned A.O. holding the loans of Rs.5,50,000/- from M/s. Subhodh Enterprises and Rs.2,00,000/- from M/s. Naresh Trading Co. as bogus and adding the same to the income of the appellant. The appellant had discharged the primary onus by submitting copies of confirmation, names, addresses, PAN, income tax return copies, TDS certificates, and copy of accounts. Despite this, the additions were made, and the consequential interest paid on such loans amounting to Rs.36,309/- was disallowed. Issue 2: Reliance on third-party statements and documents The learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that the loans obtained by the appellant are bogus, relying solely on the statement of third party Mr. Ram Dinesh Sharma and a document found during a survey u/s.133A on Mr. Sharma. The appellant argued that such paper does not have evidential value nor does it relate to the appellant, and hence the additions made by relying on such statements and papers deserve to be deleted. Issue 3: Failure to produce depositors and the genuineness of loans The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the authorized representative of the appellant and that of Mr. Ram Dinesh Sharma are the same and that because the depositors were not produced before the learned A.O., the appellant failed to prove the genuineness of loans. The appellant had discharged the primary onus regarding the genuineness of transactions, identity of the depositors, and their capacity. The appellant requested the A.O. to issue summons to the depositors for their appearance, which was not done. The loans of Rs.7,50,000/- along with interest paid thereon of Rs.36,309/- should not have been added as bogus. Judgment: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed confirmation letters, bank statements, address verification, PANs, TDS details, and income-tax returns of the depositors, thus discharging the primary onus u/s.68 of the IT Act. The main reason for the impugned addition was a statement recorded during a survey of Mr. Sharma, which had no evidentiary value as per the case of Paul Mathews and Sons vs. CIT. The Tribunal held that there was no valid reason for rejecting the evidences provided by the assessee and placing reliance on a statement not recorded in connection with any proceedings against the assessee. The Tribunal reversed the findings of the authorities below and directed to delete the addition. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
|
