9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as come to a conclusion that the other loan transactions are duly explained and he has provided the necessary relief to the assessee. Nothing further has been brought to our notice to controvert the said findings of the ld CIT(A) to establish the creditworthiness of Anuradha Pareek. To that extent, the assessee has not discharged the primary onus. - Decided partly n favour of assessee. Addition of difference in the contract receipts as declared in the ITR and as reflected in the form 26AS - Held that:- The AO has simply compared the contract receipts with Form 26AS. The ld CIT(A) has however gone through the details furnished by the assessee in detail in terms of reflection of sales on account of supply of material in addition to the contract receipts in its books of accounts, the fact that the TDS has also been made on the supplies in addition to contract receipts and the reconciliation thereof. The appellant has also submitted copies of bills and payment instructions issued by the principal which shows that tax has been deducted at source on sales/supply material as well. The appellant has submitted a reconciliation statement which shows that all the receipts in the 26-AS sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidences adduced during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus the addition of ₹ 9,00,000/- so sustained deserves to be deleted. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is proprietor of two firms namely M/s Ved Prakash Co and Madan Mohan Co. The first firm M/s Ved Prakash Co. is engaged in the business of Govt. contractor undertaking contract works for JVVNL and its subsidiaries. The second firm M/s Madan Mohan Co. is engaged in the business of manufacturing of cement poles which were also supplied to the state electricity companies. Assessee filed his return of income for the year under appeal on 23.09.2010 declaring total income at ₹ 13,09,900/- and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of IT Act, 1961 at the total income of ₹ 2,13,30,310/- by making various disallowances after invoking section 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the abovementioned disallowances, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has granted partial relief to the assessee. The department is in appeal in respect of addition on account of unsecured loans and contract receipts where the ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me computation filed Whether confirmat ion filed Whether Summon issued Anuradha Pareek 9,00,000/- ANVPP 2650 F 125 126 34-35 Not Known Bhagwan Sahay 1,50,000/- ARKPK 1059 Q 41 36 -do- Bhagwati Pd. Ssharma 1,50,000/- BXYPS 6699 M 132 37 -do- Kamlesh Kr. Sharma 1,00,000/- BGGPS8117 M 129-130 38 -do- Om Prakash Pareek 2,00,000/- AAQPP7307 P 127-128 39 -do- Rakesh Pareek 70,000/- AKNPP6804 A 131 40 -do- M.L.Sharma 3,00,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther enquiry whatsoever was made in respect of loan taken from Anuradha Pareek, rather merely on the basis of return of income furnished, it was concluded that lender was not in a position to lend a sum of ₹ 9 lacs. In this regard, it is submitted that it is well settled law that so far as funds have been borrowed through banking channels and identity as well as genuineness of the transaction is proved, and assessee has proved the source of a particular income onus of proving source of source does not lie upon assessee. In the circumstances it is submitted that assessee had duly discharged its burden of proving the identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the lender and thus entire addition of ₹ 18,70,000/- on account of unsecured loans is not sustain able in law. Reliance placed on the following decisions: Orrisa Corporation (P) Ltd. reported in 159 ITR 78. 383 ITR 502 CITvs. Vrindavan Farms P.Ltd. (Delhi). 101 DTR 377 -366 ITR 217 267 CTR 396 CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (Raj.) 49 DTR 212 CIT vs. Bhawani Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. (Raj.) 187 Taxman 338 Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO (Raj.) 128 TTJ 708 Shanti Kumar Chordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 9,00,000/- on account of unsecured loans received from six persons. This ground is partly allowed. 4.4 We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. The ld CIT(A) has rightly applied the test of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness to examine the unsecured loan transactions of the appellant and after examining the material on record, has given a clear finding that except for Anuradha Pareek, the said test is duly satisfied. Regarding the findings about Anuradha Pareek from whom the assessee has shown unsecured loan transaction of ₹ 9,00,000, the ld CIT(A) has given a finding after examining her return of income that her creditworthiness is not proved. Where any one of three limbs of the basis test as referred above are not satisfied, it cannot be said that the assessee has discharged the primary onus placed upon him. The assessee has placed the necessary documentation before the ld CIT(A) and after going through the same, where the ld CIT(A) has arrived at a conclusion, it cannot be said that adequate opportunity was not given to the assessee. Apparently, on review of the same set of documentation furnished by the assessee, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the receipts of the assessee from which it would clearly be seen that the deductions have been made from the supplies also, few copies of the bills and payment instructions issued by the awarder at the time of making payment, as submitted to the ld. AO in support of the claim are enclosed wherein it is clearly stated that the TDS was also deducted in the case of supplies made to the awarder thus the gross receipts should have been compared instead of comparing the contract receipts only. Therefore, the observation of ld. AO was factually wrong and when these facts were brought to the knowledge of the ld. CIT(A), after thorough examination of the copies of bills/payment instructions issued by principal, which reflected that tax had been deducted at source on sales/ supply of material as well and the reconciliation statement of receipts as per books of accounts and as per 26AS, ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. 5.2 Ld DR vehemently argued the matter and supported the order of the AO. 5.3 We have heard the rival submissions and pursued the material available on record. We see no reason to interfere with the findings of the ld CIT(A). The AO has simply compared the contract re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
