9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of property in the absence of any documentary evidence adduced. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) was wrong in observing that the assessee has satisfactorily discharged the onus placed upon him in explaining about the credit worthiness of the loan given. 3. That by not inquiring about the correctness of the claim made by the assessee, the Ld. CIT (A) has committed palpable injustice. 4. That on the facts of the case and having regard to the preponderance of the probabilities, the addition of Rs.10 lacs made to the income of the assessee was made on cogent grounds and should not have been deleted. 2. The notice in this case was issued on 30.05.2012. The same was duly received. However, none has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee at the ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, thereby failing to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. The cash credit of Rs. 10 lac received by the assessee from Ms Purnima Chaudhary was, therefore, treated by the Assessing Officer as deemed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the IT Act. 4. By virtue of the impugned order, the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved, the department is in appeal before us. 6. Challenging the impugned order, the Ld. DR has contended before us that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in accepting the assessee's contention that the source of the loan was sale of property, particularly in view of the fact that no documentary evidence had been adduced to support such sale; that the Ld. CIT (A), in fact, ought to have remitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Vihar, New Delhi, signed by one Ms Raj Rani. It was this deposit which was stated to be the source of advancing the unsecured loan of Rs. 10 lac to the assessee and it was stated to have been received on account of sale of some property. 8. While deleting the addition, the Ld. CIT (A) observed that the perusal of the bank statement of the assessee showed that the cheque No.366445 dated 08.03.2008 from the bank account of Ms Purnima Chaudhary had been duly debited, favouring M/s Jainex Metal, the assessee's proprietary concern and, therefore, there was no doubt about the genuineness of the transaction. Dealing with the issue of credit worthiness of the creditor, the CIT (A)'s observation was that the assessee had filed a copy of Ms Chaudh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that the assessee had duly discharged his onus of establishing the identity and credit worthiness of the creditor, as well as the genuineness of the transaction. 9. We find that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is a detailed and well reasoned order. The department has remained unsuccessful in dislodging the same before us. The findings of fact recorded therein remained unhinged. It remains undisputed that in the creditor's account, as on 16.02.2008 there were deposits of Rs. 12,50,000/-. These deposits were by clearing. An amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- had been deposited on 07.03.2008 in cash. Since the cheque No.676930 dated 12.02.2008 from Ms Raj Rani to Ms Purnima Chaudhary, the assessee's creditor, for Rs. 12,50,000/- has not attracted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
