9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s before the Ld. CIT(A), who after proper verification found that only the loans amounting to ₹ 1,32,000/- were received in this year and the assessee furnished the relevant documents for identification and confirmation. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the new evidences to the AO who simply stated that those should not be admitted, however, he had not given the reason as to why those were not admissible. It, therefore, appears that the addition made by the AO was based only on surmises and conjectures which is not enable particularly when during the year under consideration the amount received from the new creditors was only of ₹ 1,32,000/-. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts do not see any infirmity in the order of L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal : 1. Deleting the addition of ₹ 25,46,685/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T.Act. 2. Accepting the confirmation of the assessee for unsecured loans without directing the AO to make further enquiry to ascertain the genuineness of the transaction and identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. 3. Deleting the disallowance of ₹ 2,17,621/- made by the AO for non-furnishing the books of accounts and bills/vouchers. 4. CIT(A) held that the AO did not find any discrepancy in the books of accounts or bill and vouchers whereas the same were not produced before the AO. 3. Vide Ground nos. 1 2 the grievance of the department relates to the deletion of addition of ₹ 5, 46,685 made by the AO u/s 68 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished the medical certificate wherein it was mentioned that he was suffering from hepatitis jaundice and was bed-ridden for about two months. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) called a remand report from the AO who vide letter dated 5.7.2012 objected to the admission of the additional evidences and as regards to the unsecured loans, he stated that confirmations of the loan from the creditors were not filed before him during the assessment proceedings, therefore, in the absence of proper verification the genuineness , identity and creditworthiness of the loans could not be established. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the remand report to the assessee for a rejoinder. In response the assessee stated that the additions made by the AO were purely based o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agi (50,000/-) had been placed on record. The Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the argument of the AO regarding non-availability of any paper regarding unsecured loan was factually incorrect. He also observed that the balance loans taken by the assessee were from financial institutions and banks, therefore, the addition of ₹ 25,46,685/- on account of non-verification of unsecured loans did not hold good particularly in the light of the evidences that only ₹ 1,32,000/- were received by the assessee as unsecured loan during the year and the balance amount was carried forward from the last year. Accordingly addition of ₹ 25,46,685/- was deleted. Now the department is in appeal. 8. The Ld. DR reiterated of the observations m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the year under consideration the amount received from the new creditors was only of ₹ 1,32,000/-. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts do not see any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly we do not see any merit in the appeal of the department on this issue. 10. The next issue vide ground no. 3 relates to the deletion of disallowance of ₹ 2,17,621/- made by the AO. Facts related to this issue in brief are that the assessee claimed various expenses under different heads at ₹ 6,17,621. The AO restricted those expenses to ₹ 4,00,000/- and balance claim of ₹ 2,17,621/- was disallowed. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not incurred for the business purposes. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the impugned addition made by the AO. We do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 13. As regards to the cross objection filed by the assessee is concerned, it is noticed that no specific relief has been sought and the assessee mainly supported the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). and in the former part on this order, we have dismissed the appeal of the department. Therefore this cross objection in support of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) becomes infructuous. Accordingly the same is dismissed as infructuous. 14. In the result appeal of the department and C.O. of the assessee are dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
