9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 5, 46,685 made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to the "act" in short). 4. Facts of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " 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 on suspicion, surmises and wrong facts. It was stated that the total unsecured loans (other than banks) amounted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding 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 Rs. 25,46,685/- on account of non-verification of unsecured loans did not hold good particularly in the light of the evidences that only Rs. 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 Rs. 25,46,685/- was deleted. Now the department is in appeal. 8. The Ld. DR reiterated of the observations made by the AO and strongly supported the assessment order dated 9.12.2011. In his rival submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmity 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 6,17,621. The AO restricted those expenses to Rs. 4,00,000/- and balance claim of Rs. 2,17,621/- was disallowed. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the disallowance by observing that the AO had not pointed out any discrepancy or mistake in the balance sheet, profit & loss account, books of accounts or bills and vouchers of the assessee. He, furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
