9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has fully discharged the onus cast upon it to prove the genuineness of the loan transaction of Rs. 3.50 lakh from U.S.Chawla HUF – order set aside - Decided in favour of Assessee. Deletion made on account of advances appearing in the balance sheet – Held that:- There was no reason to come to the conclusion that the amount of advances can be taxed in the when the equal amount of sale effected by the assessee in the subsequent year has been accepted - If the amount of advance is taxed in this year and the sales are taken as receipt in the subsequent year, it would amount to double taxation of income - the advances were received by cheque and the addresses of persons who gave the advances were duly supplied at the assessment stage – ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Kishan Vyas For the Respondent : Dr. K. Shivaram ORDER Per R. S. Syal (AM) :- These two cross appeals - one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue - arise out of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 15.09.2010 in relation to the assessment year 2006-2007. 2. The only ground raised by the assessee in its appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 3,50,000 u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act'). Briefly stated the facts of this ground are that the assessee received unsecured loan, inter alia, of Rs. 3,50,000 from U.S.Chawla HUF. On being called upon to furnish evidence about the genuineness of the transactions, the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not accepted by the Revenue. Having accepted the return of U.S.Chawla HUF for this year and earlier years in which such loan was advanced and the repayment was received in the current year, we fail to understand as to how the source of the said money can be disputed. It has never been the case of the assessee that U.S.Chawla HUF deposited the amount with it out of current income. There is no bar in advancing loan out of other amounts legally available. As regards the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000, it is seen that U.S.Chawla HUF received an amount of Rs. 1.08 lakh from Monarch as commission, which was offered for taxation. It is from such amount that the loan of Rs. 1 lakh was advanced to the assessee. In our considered opinion, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akh from the above referred three persons during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Such advances were received against the goods to be sold in the subsequent year for which the copies of actual bills were also produced before the Assessing Officer. We fail to appreciate as to how the amount of advances can be taxed in the year under consideration when the equal amount of sale effected by the assessee in the subsequent year has been accepted. If the amount of advance is taxed in this year and the sales are taken as receipt in the subsequent year, it would amount to double taxation of income. Apart from that it is relevant to note that the advances were received by cheque and the addresses of persons who g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken by the assessee from Mrs.Amrit Chawla in earlier year as the same was appearing as opening credit. Further Mrs. Amrit Chawla received a gift of Rs. 5 lakh from Sukhjitkaur Bagga (real sister). Acopy of the gift deed along with her address and permanent account number was also given to the Assessing Officer. Mrs.Amrit Chawla furnished her return declaring all the relevant particulars, which was duly accepted by the A.O. She acknowledged the deposit of loan of Rs. 5.84 lakh with the assessee by way of proper receipt. In view of these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was successful in discharging the onus cast upon it to prove the genuineness of the loan received from Mrs.Amrit Chawla. The impugned order is, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, the application of the gifts by way of giving loans etc. cannot be questioned. Further, all the necessary details of the donor have been given by the appellant to the A.O. The loan confirmations, bank statement details etc. of the minor Sarabjyot Singh were also provided by the appellant. Therefore, in my considered view, the addition so made by the A.O. cannot be sustained. The A.O. is directed to delete the same." 10. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, we find that the addition u/s 68 was made by the Assessing Officer on account of these two alleged loans received from two minors. The learned CIT(A) chose to delete the addition by observing that the gifts received by these two minors were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
