9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .50,57,457. 3. On the facts and consideration of the case in law, the Ld AO has not provided adequate time for getting confirmation of loan from more than 60 lenders from whom the assessee has borrowed funds from those lenders for carrying business activities. In view of the large number of lenders who are instrumental in carrying out the business of the assessee, the information called for by the AO either delayed or the intimations sent to them were returned for various reasons such as shifting of residence, non availability of the persons at the time of delivering the notices by the department. 4. On the facts and consideration of the case and in law the assessee has to state that each and every amount of loan obtained by the lenders received by way of cheque payment and not a single case of cash transactions which is clearly evident by the bank statements submitted by the assessee for the entire year. 5. On the facts and consideration of the case and in law, the assessee has made every effort to meet the demands of the department with right earnest and all the necessary documents in support of the loans were submitted from time to time as per the require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case. So far as the cases in which no amounts were received in the relevant previous year and the balance reflected only the opening balance, the CIT(A) accepted the genuineness of these cases and, accordingly, assessee's explanation was accepted. In respect of Schedule, where the assessee, vis the opening balance and also the transaction took place during the relevant previous year, the CIT(A) partly accepted the explanation of the assessee but held the loans to the extent of Rs.26,50,000 as not genuine. While doing so, the reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) was as follows: "5.4 Coming to rest of parties in Schedule I where Assessing Officer could no reply they are discussed now, In case of these the Assessing Officer has reported that notices were issued on the addresses given by the appellant during the remand proceedings but they have come back. In reply the appellant has only commented that parties have shifted the residence and when appellant was informed about the sane they called the party and required details were submitted by them to the Assessing Officer. Same is the case for Meghna Sabharwal. They are decided as under: (i) As regards Sarita Aggarwal t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer in his remand report has already stated that the details furnished by Shri Kewal Krishna Gupta have been verified and it is found that the loan has not even given by cheque. There is no balance sheet maintained by Shri Kewal Krishna Gupta and in view of this the Assessing Officer concluding that the loans appearing in the name of Kewal Krishna Gupta, individual for Rs.3,00,000/- and Kewal Krishna Gupta (HUF) for Rs.3,00,000/- are not proved. I agree with the Assessing Officer that merely filing the return showing some income will not prove creditworthy of the appellant when no books of accounts are maintained and there is no loan confirmation for the same. Hence addition for Rs.6,00,000/- is sustained. viii) In case of Rakhi Aggaraal Assessing Officer has given clear finding that she could not explain the source of cash deposit in her bank. just before issuing the cheque in the name of R.D.Builders for Rs.70000/-. In view of this the amount of Rs.70,000/- is treated as unexplained and hence sustained. (ix) Coming to Shruti Aggarwal Assessing Officer has informed that no response was received from her. The appellant has only taken the plea that there was a de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Total Rs.1,12,77,050" 3. So far as the amounts in third list were concerned, i.e. with respect to items of loans which were squared up during the year, the CIT(A) noted that the assessee has not filed balance confirmations in respect of the same and treated the same as bogus loans. The CIT(A) further noted that the total of these amounts worked out to Rs.1,12,77,050 whereas the additions made by the Assessing Officer was only Rs.62,19,593. The difference was explained to the effect that where as the AO had added only the difference between the closing balance of loan creditors between the loans as at the end of the relevant previous year vis-à-vis loans as at the beginning of the previous year, the CIT(A) has adopted the entire amounts of outstanding in respect of the bogus loans which include the amounts squared up during the relevant previous. The CIT(A) noted that even though there is enhancement in addition u/s.68 to the tune of Rs.50,57,475, no notice for enhancement is required as appellant has himself furnished name of the parties and amount for the squared up loans. It was in this background and without issuing any notice for enhancement, the CIT(A) confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
