9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the amount of Rs.19,00,000/- which has been reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee was received from Mr. Masqooth Ali.Thus Cash credit is explained by Assessee properly - Appeal allowed in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1024/Mds/2011 - - - Dated:- 6-7-2012 - SHRI N.S.SAINI AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JJ. Appellant by : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, JCIT Respondent by : Mr. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue impugning the order of the CIT(A)-V, Chennai dated 29.03.2011. 2. The present appeal is in second round of litigation in the Tribunal for the same issue. The assessee company is in the business of promoting flats. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court and various High Courts relied upon by the ld. AR support the contention of the appellant. The appellant has received the loan from its Director Mr. Masqooth Ali by bank cheque who has confirmed the same in its sown statement before the Assessing Officer and the source for the same also was provided by furnishing its bank accounts. There is an deposit entry of Rs. 19,00,000/- dated 8.2.1996 in the saving bank accounts of Mr. Masqooth Ali which goes to prove that the appellant has provided and proved the source of the loan which he has received. The Assessing Officer s finding that the onus to prove a credit lies on the part of the assessee has not been proved is not correct. In the above circumstances, the addition made by the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had also written to the bank to supply necessary details to the Department but the bank refused to divulge information about the transactions in the account of Mr. Masqooth Ali. The Assessing Officer, in the absence of information sought with respect to the savings bank account of Mr. Masqooth Ali, made addition of Rs.21,50,000/- in the income of the assessee as undisclosed source. The Assessing Officer further held that the assessee was duty bound to prove source of credit as the onus was on the assessee to show genuineness of the transaction. 7. The assessee had given details of the source of receipt of Rs.19,00,000/-. This fact has not been disputed by Mr. Masqooth Ali who has forwarded the above said amount. The assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee who had refused to give details. The assessee cannot be held responsible for the non-co-operation of the bank due to their own limitations. 9. The ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the Pradip Kumar Loyalka s case (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the case referred to, the assessee was not able to prove the amounts received from the creditors which was received as gifts from the persons closely related to the assessee. No gift tax returns were filed. Therefore, the facts of the case referred to is entirely different from the facts of the present case. Therefore, both the cases relied upon by the DR are not applicable to the present case. 10. We find that the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
