9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Alwar, dated 1-05-2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds in his appeal. (1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 7,00,000/- by treating the loan taken from Smt. Maya Devi of ₹ 5.00 lacs and from Shri Mohan Lal Gupta of ₹ 2.00 lacs as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. He has further erred in disallowing ₹ 8,260/- on account of interest paid to Shri Mohan Lal Gupta. (2) The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the rejection of books of account by applying provisions of Section 145(3). (2.1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming lump sum trading addition of ₹ 30,000/- to the trading result declared by the assessee. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was found to have taken cash credits of ₹ 7.00 lacs as under:- (i) Smt. Maya Devi During the year under consideration the assessee has taken loan of ₹ 5.00 lacs vide cheque no. 12588 on 13-01- 2010. The assessee was asked to prove creditworthiness an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thus the assessee has shown outstanding loan of ₹ 2,08,260/- as on 31-03-2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to prove creditworthiness, genuineness of loan alongwith complete identity of person vide questionnaire dated 27-12-2011. The assessee filed confirmation of loan, which was examined u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 from the concerned person requiring to produce the supporting evidence to prove his creditworthiness vide this office letter dated 20-12-2012. In response, the A.R. of the assessee filed reply on 26-12-2012 stating that the assessee is an employee of Pvt. Company and filed copy of ITR, bank statement alongwith Form No. 16. On verification, it was noticed that cash of ₹ 49,000/- was deposited on 20-07-2009 and further cash was also deposited on 21-07-2009 in the bank account Shri Mohan Lal Gupta and thereafter, issued cheque of ₹ 2.00 kacs total income the assessee ib 22-07-2009. Moreover, the assessee has debited interest of ₹ 8,260/- in his books of account whereas Shri Mohan Lal Gupta has not shown any interest income received from the assessee. Therefore, the A.R. of the assessee was asked to clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve, the trading results declared by the assessee are not subject to verification. Hence, the assessee's books of account cannot be accepted as complete and correct and therefore, the true profits of the assessee's business cannot be deduced and hence provisions of Section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are clearly applicable in the case of the assessee. 2.2 In first appeal, the addition in respect of cash credit was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) by following observations. 4.4 The appellant has stated that a loan of ₹ 5.00lcs was received from Smt. Maya Devi vide cheque no. 12588 on 13-01-2010. It is submitted that confirmation from the creditors could not be filed as she is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI). It is stated that she is not an assessee to tax. However, a copy of her bank account has been filed but no details of source of her income could be filed. In the course of appellate proceedings, an affidavit from the creditor Smt. Maya Devi alongiwth a copy of Passport was also filed. 4.5 It is submitted that a loan of ₹ 2.00 lacs was taken by cheque from Shri Mohan Lal Gupta on 20-07-2007 and a copy of Form 16 alongwith copy of ITR filed and bank s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled to prove the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. (ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay KumarTalwar vs. CIT reported in 330 ITR 1 (SC)(2010) has held that where assessee did not produce any evidence to rebut the presumption drawn against him u/s 68 of the I.T. Act , the addition made based on amounts credited in the account u/s 68 was held to be valid, in the absence of any cogent evidence. 4.9 In view of the above facts, I hold that appellant has not been able to discharge the onus as required uu68 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, I confirm the addition of ₹ 7.00 lacs made by the AO under this head 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee contends that the assessee has discharged his burden in terms of Section 68 of the Act by providing necessary documents. 2.4 The ld. DR on the other hand vehemently contends that before AO the assessee gave contradictory statement firstly by filing copy of account of Smt. Maya Devi with the remarks that Smt. Maya Devi is dead and thereafter filed a claim that she was alive and not returning in India but she was living in South Africa. Similarly, an affidavit was filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
