9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Rs. 3,37,718/- During the year the assessee has shown a turnover of Rs. 7.82 crore with loss of Rs. 3.47 crore which has further been adjusted to the total loss of Rs. 10.65 crores during the year. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted addition of Rs. 5,78,07,869/- to unsecured loan. In case of the following creditors, the AO was of the view that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the loan transactions : Sr.No. Name Addition during the year 1 Anita Kapur Rs.17,15,165/ 2 Archana Shah Rs.15,13,779/ 3 Dalal Enterprises HUF Rs.12,03,837/ 4 Flying Horse Solution Rs.26,22,814/ 5 Gunjan Shah Rs.1,97,923/ 6 Karnik Parikh HUF Rs.27,30,302/ 7 M M Gandhi HUF Rs.7,89,829/ 8 Shobhana Seth Rs.6,13,775/ 9 Suresh K. Shah HUF Rs.29,60,884/ Total Rs.1,43,48,308/ 4. The AO observed that in respect of the above unsecured loans, credited in the books of the assessee, it has failed to explain the transactions in regard to their nature, sources, credit worthiness, date of transactions etc. Accordingly, unsecured loans of Rs. 1,43,48,308/- were added to the income of the assessee under the provisions of section 68 of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reads as under : "7. I have carefully gone through the assessment order, submission of the appellant and the remand report of the AO, I have also gone through the confirmations of Shri. Karnik Kantilal Parikh (HUF), Shri M. M Gandhi (HUF), Smt, Shobhana Seth and Smt. Anita Kapur filed before during the course of remand report proceedings. A perusal of the same reveals that these creditors have given complete details of the a/cs alongwith their PAN. The creditors have confirmed having given loans through a/c payee cheques. The loans were arranged through finance broker Shri. Ketan Mehta of M/s. K S M Securities and Finance Ltd., Mumbai. In view of the confirmations sent directly by these 4 creditors, genuineness of cash credits is acceptable. As regards other creditors, on perusal of the xerox copies of the confirmations filed by the appellant in the case of Dalal Enterprises (HUF), Gunjan Shah, Suresh K. Shah (HUF), Flying Horse Solution and Archana Shah, it was revealed that there were cuttings in the balances (Dalal Enterprises (HUF) and Flying Horse Solution). Confirmation of Dalal Enterprises (HUF) did not mention PAN. In the case of Gunjan Shah no address was mentioned, in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to prove Identification and credit worthiness of these creditors. M/s. K S M Securities and Finance Ltd which is stated to have arranged these loans also did not respond to appellant's letters as stated orally by AR during the appellate proceedings. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the following cash credits have not been found to be genuine. Sr.No. Name Amount 1 Dalal Enterprises, (HUF) Rs. 12,03,837 2 Gunian Shah Rs. 1,97,923 3 Suresh K.Shah (HUF) Rs.29,60,884 4 Flying Horse Solution Rs. 26,22,814 5 Archana shah Rs.15,13,779 Total Rs.84,99,237 The AO was therefore, justified in treating the same as unexplained cash credits and making the addition u/s 68 of the Act. Additions of Rs. 84,99,237/as mentioned above and Rs. 10,08,079/on account of difference in the amounts of 3 creditors namely Shri. Karnik Kantilal Parikh (HUF), Shri. M. M. Gandhi (HUF). Smt. Shobhana Seth (Total Rs. 95,07,316/) u/s 68 of the IT Act are confirmed. The appellant gets a relief of Rs. 48,40,992/( 1,43,48,308 Rs. 95,07,316). 9. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. 9. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amount shown by the assessee Amount as per loan confirmations Difference 1 Shri Karnik Kantilal Parikh (HUF) Rs.27,30,302/ Rs. 21,76,198/ Rs. 5,54,104/ 2 Shri M. M. Gandhi (HUF) Rs.7,89,829/ Rs. 5,50,000/ Rs. 2,39,829/- 3 Smt. Shobhana Seth Rs.6,13,775/ Rs. 3,99,629/ Rs. 2,14,146/- 4 Smt. Anita Kapur Rs.17,15,165/ Rs. 17,15,165/ Total Rs.48,40,992/ 10,08,079/- Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) while accepting loan to the tune of Rs. 48,40,992/- in respect of 4 persons sustained the addition of Rs. 10,08,079/- which is the difference between the figures shown by the assessee and the figures as per the loan confirmation letters filed before the AO by the above 4 parties. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the difference of Rs. 10,08,079/- is upheld. 14. Now coming to the balance amount of Rs. 84,99,237/- taken from the 5 parties, it is a fact that despite letters issued by the AO, the above loan creditors did not respond to such letters during the remand proceedings. It is the settled position of law that for accepting any cash credit, the onus is always on the assessee to substantiate with evidence regarding the identify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
