9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... funds from one account to another, CIT(A) used his discretion only with reference to ₹ 50,000/- credited by way of transfer from assessee’s brother account and ₹ 2,50,000/- by way of loan obtained from Mr. M. Neeraja Reddy who is an assessee - CIT(A) is justifiable on the facts on record – thus, there is no reason to consider the Revenue objections - there seems to be non-application of mind on the part of the authorities in preferring second appeal – Decided against Revenue. - ITA. No. 1086/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 9-7-2014 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah And Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram For the Respondent : Mr. D. Vijaya Kumar Mr. G. Purushotham ORDER Per B. Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plained credits and total of ₹ 27,02,100/- was brought to tax as unexplained cash credits. 4. It was contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that assessee has furnished various details before the A.O. but they were not accepted and further additional evidence was also filed explaining various deposits in the bank account. Ld. CIT(A) sent the matter on remand and A.O s (Two different Officers) submitted reports vide letter dated 12.11.2012, which was forwarded by the Addl. Commissioner on 15.11.2012 and further report on 25.02.2013. Considering the remand reports by the A.O. and explanation by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) gave relief in para 5.5 of the order as under : 5.5 I have gone through the observations of the assessing officer and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to have been examined by the assessing officer in remand proceedings, as per which the loan was confirmed, which was shown to have been given out of his agricultural income, for which no evidence was furnished. The other fact remains that Mr. Bharat Kumar is not a family member, a private employee, not assessed to tax, presumably having a bank account, but has chosen to lend the money by cash. Further, the date and mode of repayment of loan etc. were not clearly explained. Under the circumstances, it may be reasonable to hold that the claimed loan represent the unexplained credit, in the hands of the appellant. Regarding the amount of ₹ 73,400/- which represented the cash deposits into HDFC bank, it may be relevant to observe that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the two bank accounts maintained by the appellant with HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank. An amount of ₹ 4,41,000/- represent the credits into HDFC Bank and ₹ 9,42,700/- represent credits into ICICI Bank. As regard to the credits in HDFC Bank, the AO has accepted the explanation of the appellant for ₹ 2,50,000/-, being the transfer from ICICI Bank account. Regarding ₹ 50,000/ - which is a credit on 13.04.2008, it has been submitted by the appellant that the amount represent the transfer from the bank account of Mr. Dineswara Reddy, his brother, and the bank account extract furnished in this regard confirm the transaction. In this regard, it may be relevant to mention that the assessing officer not accepted the explanation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on behalf of Mr. Bhaskar Reddy and such remark is not a relevant to doubt the genuineness of transaction. The other reason quoted for disbelieving of the transaction was not non furnishing of capital account, balance sheet of Bhaskar Reddy. However, in this regard, it is relevant to refer to the report of the assessing officer dt. 12.11.2012, wherein the creditworthiness of Mr. Bhaskar Reddy was not doubted with further indication of the assets in the form of debtors that have been quantified at as high as ₹ 22,20,94,439/-. In light of the above facts, the observation of the assessing officer in remand report, for disbelieving the transaction, found to be misplaced and contradictory. Hence, it is held that there is no ground for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ges, which were already forming part of the gross receipts of consultancy charges, as unexplained credit is not justified. 6.9.3 The amount of ₹ 48,700/- is shown to have been transferred from the bank account maintained by the appellant himself in USA and the said transaction is routed through the bank account, whose details are available on record. Hence, it is held that the addition made, treating such amounts as unexplained credit, with the comment that 'no proof furnished', is not sustainable. Since, it is appellant's own transaction routed through banking channel, the same cannot be treated as unexplained credit in the hands of appellant. Accordingly, the addition of ₹ 13,83,700/-, on account of treating the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
