9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such creditors under s. 131. Except Mr. Laxminarayan Mundada, all others appeared and were examined by the AO. The AO treated the loans from three creditors as genuine. Ultimately he added a sum of Rs. 2,16,311 to the returned income. In the appeal by the assessee before the CIT(A) a part relief was given by confirming an addition of Rs. 81,087 and deleting the rest out of the total addition of Rs. 2,16,311 made by the AO. The addition confirmed by the CIT(A) included principal of Rs. 75,000 and interest of Rs. 6,087 belonging to loan credit from Mr. Laxminarayan Mundada. The reasons assigned by the CIT(A) for confirmation of the addition are that the identity of the creditor Shri Laxminarayan Mundada is not proved as he could not be produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f lender is totally unjustified. The loan transaction is only through account payee cheques. The AO enquired from the bank and found no different version than what is contended by the assessee. It is not necessary for the assessee to prove the source of the source. The ground created for addition is that on a single day cash was deposited in bank and a cheque was issued to the assessee and huge cash balances were not maintained regularly. It is hypothesis created by the AO. Is there any bar for such an action of deposit? Of course suspicion may arise but that itself shall not be the basis for addition. Suspicion must be corroborated with evidence. If such actions of the AO are accepted, the possible situation may well be imagined. The sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t orders read. After doing so, I am of the considered opinion that the stand of the assessee has substantial force for the following reasons. 5.2 I have gone through the paper book filed before me by the assessee. In my considered opinion, especially in the light of the case laws relied upon by the assessee, to put in short, the submissions of the assessee more particularly highlighted above, seem to have no weakness for being brushed aside especially when the assessee seems to have satisfactorily discharged his onus on his part. I, therefore, sustain the grounds of appeal of the assessee, by rejecting the defence of the Department as not satisfactory. 5.3 Coming to the appeal of the Revenue, even though I am of similar opinion i.e. in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one of Circle 7(1) and another of Circle 6(2) with different reasons assigned, one as transfer with shifting of office besides file and other as belated receipt of authorisation from the CIT. The earlier affidavit aforesaid, though mentions assessee s name in the cause title, does not even mention the appeal number and the year nor does it have any attestation unlike the later affidavit. The unity in diversity of the affidavits is that both affidavits are not on stamp papers nor even state and affirm sincerely with application of mind. My view is that as is applicable to the assessee it equally applies to the Department to the effect that the affidavits of both the parties must be sworn on a stamp paper and attested unlike herein (sic) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
