9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o establish the genuineness of the claimed loan of ₹ 1,95,50,000/- from M/s. Piyush Colonisers Ltd. and M/s. Piyush Buildwell Ltd. by furnishing sufficient evidence in support - The evidences were confirmations from both the parties , their bank statements as well as the bank statement of the assessee - By way of additional evidence the assessee has furnished some more documents before the CIT(A) - These documents were cash book, ledger and trial balance sheet with vouchers filed in two volumes of the proprietary firm M/s. Infra Developers which were admitted by the CIT(A) after calling reaction of the AO on the application - These documents also supported the claim of the assessee discussed by the CIT(A) – thus, there was no infirmity in the order of the FAA – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 3852/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 12-6-2014 - Shri I. C. Sudhir And Shri B. C. Meena,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate, Shri Ashoki Kumar Aneja, Shri Deepak Aneja, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Keyar Patel (Sr. DR) ORDER Per I. C. Sudhir, Judicial Member The revenue has impugned first appellate order on the following grounds :- 1. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n support of the grounds the Ld. DR contended that sufficient opportunity was available with the assessee to produce the documents before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings which was not availed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) ignoring these facts has admitted the additional evidence without recording his satisfaction for doing so. 5. The Ld. AR on the other hand submitted that the additional evidence have been admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) after affording opportunity to the AO to furnish his reaction on the application moved by the assessee under Rule 46A (2) of the I.T. Rules. Ld. CIT(A) has dealt in detail with this issue and being satisfied with the reason shown for not producing these documents before the AO during the assessment proceedings, he has admitted the additional evidence. He submitted that there is no violation of rule 46A of the Rules by the Ld. CIT(A). He placed reliance on the following decisions :- 1. CIT vs. Mukta Metal Works 336 ITR 555 (P H) 2. Electra (Jaipur) Pvt. Ltd. vs Inspecting ACIT (1988)26 ITR 236 (Delhi) 3. CIT vs. Test Hindred India Pvt. Ltd. 351 ITR 57 (Delhi) 6. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO made addition of this amount on the basis that the competitor (here M/s. Piyush Buildwell India Ltd. and M/s. Piyush Colonizer Ltd.) normally does not advance any loan to a person who is in the same line of business. The other reasons shown for the addition by the AO was that the assesee did not produce the ten parties to whom land advance was stated to be given nor copies of agreement were filed. The assessee did not appear personally in response to summons issued u/s 131. The AO concluded that the money of ₹ 1,95,50,000/- was assessee s own money and it had tried to utilise this money routing through the books of the above discussed builder. The AO also noted that the assessee did not produce books of accounts and vouchers etc. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition based on his finding in para No. 13 of the first appellate order discussing the reasons leading to the deletion of the addition. 8. In support of the ground Ld. DR placed reliance on the assessment order. He submitted that while deleting the addition the Ld. CIT(A) has not given his positive findings. 9. Ld. AR on the other hand placed reliance on the first appellate order. He reiterated submissions m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of unsecured loan from M/s Piyush Colonisers Ltd, while the Ld. AR. has explained the sources of deposits of ₹ 1,95,50,000/- in Canara Bank Statement for the AY. 2007-08, as per page 23 of the P.B. It is further found that the appellant had filed the confirmations of total amount received by him at ₹ 1,95,50,000/- as appearing in Canara Bank of the appellant at page 19 of the P.B. The AO. vide letter dated 18.12.2009 asked for the production of the parties/persons for verification. In this connection, the AO. has shown her own failure in exercising the powers granted in the LT. Act, 1961, in ensuring the appearance of these depositors or even the assessee himself. Yet as per the assessment records, the AO. had made independent enquiries under the provisions of section 133(6) of the I.T. Act and M/s Piyush Colonisers Ltd. had furnished information vide letter dated 09.12.2009 u/s 133(6), supplying the confirmed copy of accounts amounting to ₹ 1,53,50,000/- given to M/s Infra Developers and the copy of the bank statement of Punjab National Bank from where cheques of loan were given to the appellant. As per this account, the current debit balance total was ₹ 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
