9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shri Shamim Yahya,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv. For the Respondent : Sh. S.N. Bhatia, DR ORDER Per Shamim Yahya: AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 13.12.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. 2. In this case the matter relates to addition on account of unexplained deposits of Rs. 13,98,065/-; Rs. 17,30,000/- and unexplained capital addition of Rs. 4,00,000/-. At the outset we note that Revenue has raised ground regarding violation of Rule 46A. In this regard, we note that assessee has submitted the additional documents before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has remanded the same to the AO and AO's remand report is also obtained. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has also obtained rejoinder from the assessee and thereafter adjudicated the issue. On going through the appellate order, we find that there is no issue of violation of Rule 46A. The assessee has pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that it was not given proper time by the AO to file the necessary documents and the same were filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) remanded the same to the file of the AO and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was confirmed by Surinder Kumar, whose Income Tax Return was also filed. Ld. CIT(A) noted that in the assessment order in the case of Surinder Kumar the income was assessed at Rs. 6,12,900/- and bank statement was also filed. Ld. CIT(A) noted that AO has not been able to point out anything adverse in the remand report. Ld. CIT(A) held that not only the nature of transactions are well explained, identity and creditworthiness are proved. Even though, the same was not onus on the assessee, because it was a business transaction and not a loan transaction. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 9,98,065/-. 8. Ld. CIT(A) further held that the receipt of Rs. 4,00,000/- by cheque from Sh. Parhlad Yadav was an advance received by cheque for purchase of vehicle and the same was later on repaid through the account payee cheques. Ld. CIT(A) held that identity as well as creditworthiness is well proved from the confirmation, copy of Income tax returns and copy of bank account. Thus, he deleted the addition of Rs. 4 lacs in this regard. Thus the entire addition of Rs. 13,98,065/- on the above account was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 9. Against the above order the Revenue is in app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese partners have filed their income tax returns and their bank statement are also on record. Ld. CIT(A) noted that both these partners have claimed to have received gift and loans which the AO was not convinced. Ld. CIT(A) noted that in such a case, AO should have taken remedial action by way of enquiry and additions if suitable should be made in the hands of the partners. He held that once the partners have confirmed their transactions and are clearly and sufficiently creditworthy on their own standing AO's action of making the addition is uncalled for. 13. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 14. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that assessee's partners in this case have introduced Rs. 3 lacs (receipt on account of loan) and Rs. 1,00,000/- (on account of gift) as capital addition. Except the confirmation, nothing in support of the creditworthiness of the lenders/donors was submitted. In such circumstances, in our considered opinion, mere confirmation of transaction cannot be treated as sufficient proof of the transactions. Ld. CIT(A) has held that the AO should have taken remedial action by way of enquiry and addition, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmation of the transactions to the AO. No documents in support of the creditworthiness was produced. Ld. CIT(A) has noted that as per the documents filed, the said concern is of high repute and standing and was assessed to tax and assessee is having regular business transactions of this concern. However, while making the aforesaid observation, Ld. CIT(A) has not spelt out the documents from which he has drawn the above said conclusions. In our considered opinion, this matter needs to go back to the file of the AO. The AO shall properly examine whether this is a case of gift or it is a case of regular business transactions. AO shall also examine the documents from which Ld. CIT(A) has deduced that the said concern is of high repute and standing and the assessee has regular business transactions. Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of the AO. 19. As regards the other deposits mentioned above from the remaining 5 parties, the addition was made by the AO on the ground except for confirmation, assessee has not filed any documents in support of the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. 20. As regards receipt of Rs. 60,000/- from OM Parkash, Ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
