9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has discharged the initial onus cast upon it. The Revenue could not controvert the submissions of the assessee. CIT (A) while confirming the addition in the case of Alkaben Vasudev Patel has mainly relied on her bank statement. It is a settled law that the assessee can only be asked to prove source of credits in its books of accounts and not the source of the source of deposit. Further there is nothing on record to prove that summons was issued to Alkaben by the Revenue or explanation was sought from her with respect to the cash deposits. Another reason for confirming the addition of loan from Alkaben was that the signature on the copy of confirmation was not authenticated. Nothing has been brought on record by Revenue the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the meaning of sec. 153C was also recorded before initiating the proceedings. In response to the notice assessee filed return of income on 21-6-2006 declaring total income at Rs.35,023/-. Notices u/s. 143(3) and 142(1) along with the questionnaire was also issued and served on the assessee. In response to which the assessee filed only part submissions. Since the assessee neither attended nor filed any submissions or explanation, assessment was framed on 30-11-2007 u/s.153C r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 144 on the basis of the record available with the Department and the income was determined at Rs. 20,19,229/-. 5. Aggrieved by the action of A.O. the assessee carried the matter before the CIT (A). CIT (A) vide his order dated 27-1-2009 partly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition of Rs.4,00,000/- for two loans taken from Alkaben Kokilaben. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in not accepting the assessee's plea that it was not at all a fit case for levy of interest u/s. 234A 234B of the I.T. Act. 7. At the outset the Ld. A.R. submitted that it was not pressing ground No.1, 2 and 3 and therefore these grounds are not adjudicated and dismissed as not pressed. Ground No.5 is with respect to addition of loan taken from Alkaben and Kokilaben. 8. On verification of the balance sheet filed along with the return of income A.O. noticed that an amount of Rs.26,09,216/- was shown as creditor/depositor as on 31-3-2003. Out of the aforesaid amount Rs.15,98,291/- was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed, the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- had been received vide cheque No.0000340 dated 1-8-2002 on which interest of Rs.1450/- had become due. The deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- has been shown of Kokilaben is shown received by cheque No.0000118 dated 28-11- 2002. A copy of the bank account of Alkaben in Ahmedabad District Co-op. Bank has been filed." 15.1. The perusal of the bank account No.1115 of Alkaben V. Patel, in Ahmedabad District Co-operative Bank, received an opening balance of Rs.808/-in July which is followed by a cash deposit of Rs.1,87,940/- on 30th July, 2002 and another cash deposit of Rs.65,000/- on 1-8-2002. On the same date i.e. 1-8-2002, the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- has been transferred to the proprietary concern of the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer did not summon both the depositors. In view of this matter, he submitted that assessee has discharged the initial burden cast upon him and therefore, urged that the addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by CIT (A) be deleted. 9. On the other hand the Ld. D.R. pointed out to the finding of CIT (A) wherein in the case of Alkaben Vasudev Patel it was observed that in the Bank pass book the opening balance was a minimum and there were cash deposits which were immediately transferred to the proprietary concern of the assessee and the credit balance left in the account was to the extent of Rs.3,700/- upto September, 2008 except addition on account of Bank interest. He further submitted that both the depositors namely Alkaben Va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued to Alkaben by the Revenue or explanation was sought from her with respect to the cash deposits. Another reason for confirming the addition of loan from Alkaben was that the signature on the copy of confirmation was not authenticated. Nothing has been brought on record by Revenue the provisions which requires for authentication of the signature and the authority who was required to authenticate the signature of the depositor. In view of the totality of the facts stated hereinabove we are of the view that the addition made on account of cash credit needs to be deleted. We accordingly direct the A.O. 12. Since other grounds not pressed and are consequential in nature, same are not adjudicated and hence dismissed. 13. Thus this a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
