9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted, is not under dispute. As regards the rest of 16 persons, they were examined and had confirmed that the said advance was given by the assessee. This is also not under dispute. The assessee out of Annexure-B chose to file confirmations of 23 persons, which were filed is not under dispute. Thus when the AO was in the possession of complete addresses of each every depositors, it was the duty of the AO to call for the information, confirm or examine them to find out the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. But the AO chose not to act and use powers vested with him u/s 131 or u/s 133 (6). When the assessee had discharged the onus of proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and report filed by the AO and only allowing the part relief. Whereas it was the prerogative of the AO that only selected person from Annexure A were called for. 2. That the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) are arbitrary, illegal, illogical and unwarranted without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That the appellant craves to leave, add or amend grounds of appeal till the appeal remains undisposed off. 3. The Revenue in its appeal in ITA No.606(Asr)/2011 has raised following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief of Rs.14,27,340/- out of total addition made at Rs.32,45,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposits/loans raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the relief after considering the remand report of the AO. It would have made no difference whether the AO has drawn any conclusion or not, as it was for the CIT(A) to decide whether the addition deserves to be deleted or not. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly considered the statement of Smt. Meenakshi as she has stated in answer to question No.7 that she has given this amount from her family savings. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the relief because having no PAN does not mean that transactions are not genuine. 5. The brief facts in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had received the amount for the purchase of gold but there was fluctuation in the rates and continuous rise in the prices made it impossible for the party to purchase. Hence, the amount was returned to them. The assessee also filed addresses of some of the parties and asked to hand over the books so impounded so that information called for may be filed. The AO completed the assessment on 24.12.2008 by observing that the assessee was required to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the deposits, which were not proved. Accordingly, the peak value of Rs.32,45,500/- was added to the income of the assessee treating the same as unexplained cash credits as per provision of section 68 of the Act. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that 23 persons have furnished their confirmations but none of them have mentioned their PAN, as per copy of accounts submitted. It was argued before the ld. CIT(A) that the AO had summoned only 19 persons out of list of Annexure A and 16 persons have been examined who had confirmed of having given the advances. As regards 3 persons who had expired, the assessee had submitted relevant documents to confirm the advances given to them. Out of Annexure-B, the AO had asked for the confirmations of 23 persons, which were supplied by the said persons is not under dispute. The AO was requested to summon the creditors under section 131 and he chose only to call for 19 persons out of Annexure-A and called for confirmation of 23 persons out of Annex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be purchased and the amount was returned up to 31.03.2006. During the remand proceedings, the AO chose to examine 19 persons out of which 3 persons had expired for which the relevant documents to confirm the advance were submitted, is not under dispute. As regards the rest of 16 persons, they were examined and had confirmed that the said advance was given by the assessee. This is also not under dispute.The assessee out of Annexure-B chose to file confirmations of 23 persons, which were filed is not under dispute. When the AO was in the possession of complete addresses of each every depositors, it was the duty of the AO to call for the information, confirm or examine them to find out the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
