9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capacity to advance the loan. Accordingly, this ground is allowed in favour of assessee Undisclosed cash deposit in the bank account - Held that:- There was cash deposit amounting to ₹ 50,000/- in the bank account of the assessee on 16.6.2005. the source of the said cash was explained as ₹ 17,000/-each received from Manoj Kumar, Mohd. Saffique and Mohd. Aslam. He observed that in response to notice u/s 133(6), which were received back it transpired that there was no such person. Assessee also could not produce them before the AO. Accordingly, addition of ₹ 50,000/- was made, which was confirmed by CIT(A).After hearing both the parties we do not find any reason to interfere on this count as the assessee miserably failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing the assessee s appeal deleted the additions made u/s 68 aggregating to ₹ 28,70,000/- and confirmed the addition to the tune of ₹ 3,95,000/- and further addition of ₹ 50,000/- in respect of cash deposit in bank. 4. Being aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A), the department preferred appeal before us and the assessee filed cross objections. 5. Ground taken by the revenue in its appeal are as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made by the AO u/s 68 of IT Act 1961, in respect of creditors namely Ms Ranjana Chawla (Rs. 1,00,000)/ Mr. Mangat Ram (Rs. 3,00,000), Mr. Satish Kumar (Rs. 2,00,000), Mr. Sardari Lal Maggo (Rs. 4,00,000), Mr. Bih ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if it were an appeal presented within the time specified in sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A). The right to file cross objection crystallizes the moment appeal is filed by either party. As per mandate of section 253(4), it is an irrelevant consideration that cross objector had originally not filed any appeal. Therefore, mere dismissal of department s appeal does not result into making the cross objection infructuous and the same has to be disposed of as an appeal. We, accordingly, proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 10. The assessee has taken following grounds of cross objection: 1. That both the lower authorities grossly erred in law as well as on merit in making and confirming additions u/s 68 of the I.T. Act as unexplained c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een used for loan. Thus, to this extent, the loan amount, in any case, cannot be added. Thirdly, the creditor in his statement duly admitted the loan and also explained the source which remains unrebutted. Fourthly, on the basis of following documents furnished to the AO, the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity stands proved. Fifthly, the AO has not proved that the cash deposited in the bank is the money provided by the-assessee. Copy of statement. Confirmed ledger account. Confirmation. Relevant Bank statement. Voter ID card. Without prejudice, statement was recorded on 18.12.2008 and the Asstt. Order is also dtd. 18.12.08 and it was never confronted, therefore, it cannot be used in Asstt. adversely. 13. Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee s submission was that Ashok Kumar was owning 6 acres of agriculture land and a small kiryana store. The AO observed that it is hard to comprehend that such small farmers, residing in a a far off village or doing petty businesses were advancing money interest free and without any other benefit to a company engaged in real estate business with sole motto of earning profits. He pointed out that the creditworthiness was not established. 17. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition to the extent of ₹ 1,50,000/- after considering the following submissions made by assessee: No reason has been given by the AO for addition except that in the table he has stated cash deposit of ₹ 2.,66,0001- in the bank. This addition is wrong. Firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the details furnished, there is no proper sources for lending money, though he had confirmed the advance in the statement recorded. On careful consideration of the material available on record, the amount of ₹ 1,50,000/-, which was received during the year is treated as unexplained. Relief: ₹ 1,50,000/- . 19. From bare perusal of the observations made by CIT(A) it is evident that he has not at all examined the creditworthiness of the lender particularly with reference to the documents showing agricultural holding and produce thereon. Ld. CIT(A) has not given any cogent reasons for confirming the addition to the extent of ₹ 1,15,000/-. 20. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances and the detailed docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
