9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced the particulars with respect to those depositors such as PAN numbers etc. and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned ITAT have rightly observed that the assessee discharged his initial burden / onus and, therefore, it was for the Assessing Officer to examine those persons and hold necessary inquiry with respect to those seven depositors whose identity was disclosed and even PAN numbers of those seven depositors were also before the Assessing Officer. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned ITAT have committed any error in deleting the addition made under Section 68 of the Act and deleting the disallowance of interest paid to v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a sole proprietor of M/s. Jay Matadi Prints doing business as Cloth Merchant on whole sale basis. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 on 01/09/2009 declaring the total taxable income of ₹ 5,12,950/-. The assessment came to be completed on 15/12/2011 on total income of ₹ 40,50,710/- after making the following additions; (i) Addition of unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Act Rs.33,50,000/- (ii) Disallowance of interest paid to various depositors ₹ 1,87,763/- (2.2) It appears that while making the addition of unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of interest paid to various depositors by observing that as such the assessee had discharged the initial burden to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the depositors. While allowing the appeal, the learned CIT(A) also relied upon the appellate order for the Assessment Year 2008-09 in the case of one M/s. Mukeshkumar Co. vide Appeal No.CIT(A)XVI/ITO/Wd/11(4)/580/10-11 dated 14/10/2011. (2.4) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act and also deleting the disallowance of interest paid to various depositors, the revenue preferred appeal before the learned ITAT and by the impugned judgment and order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It emerges from the record and the impugned orders that the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned ITAT have deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act i.e. ₹ 33,50,000/- and also deleted the disallowance of interest paid to various depositors. From the assessment order, it appears that the Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 33,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Act by doubting the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the depositors. It appears that the Assessing Officer made the addition solely on the ground that though number of opportunities were given, the assessee did not produce those seven depositors before him. However, it is required to be noted that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
