9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not considered the advance from customer and unsecured loan received by the appellant during the year which financed the source of the advances given. Thus disallowance need to be rejected - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1706/Del/2012, Cross Objection No.141/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2017 - SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR For The Revenue : Sh. Sachin Jain, CA ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-I, New Delhi dated 09.04.2012 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and in this appeal assessee has filed cross objection. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of ld CIT(A) is not correct in law and on facts. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in law as well as facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 14200000/- made by the assessing officer u/s 68 of Act 1961 in respect of unsecured loans and advances as the assessee failed to prove the credit worthiness of the lender and genuineness of transaction. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the confirmation of sums received from M/s. Manikaran Buildcon Pvt. Ltd of ₹ 1.15 crores and a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs and ₹ 7 lakhs from M/s. Tonami Trading Co. and Mr. Amarjit Singh. The complete confirmation letters, copy of the ITR and bank statement for the relevant period were submitted before the ld CIT(A) and therefore, the addition was deleted. With respect to the disallowance interest he further submitted that the funds were taken by the assessee were tied up in debtors and stock. He relied upon the finding given by the ld CIT(A). He further submitted that in the present case both the additions were made on account of material which was not found during the course of search and therefore as such the additions cannot be made. 8. The ld DR relied upon the order of the ld Assessing Officer. 9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition with respect to ₹ 1.15 cores received from M/s. Manikaran Buildwell Pvt. Ltd whose confirmation were filed by the assessee along with copy of the return of income and bank statement. With respect to ₹ 20 lakhs received from M/s. Omani Trading Co. the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he evidence adduced by the appellant. He stated that the furnishing of primary documents is not denied but the appellant did not give supporting document during the course of assessment proceedings. 5.1 2 For deciding the instant issue it is essential in the interest of justice to consider the evidences-produced and mentioned above. The AO has not raised any objections on the identity creditworthiness of the lender and genuiness of the transaction nor he has any observation or negative finding that the, documents adduced by the appellant are incorrect or contrary to the facts of the case . I have gone through the documents filed by the appellant and the submissions of the appellant. The addition made by the AO on the basis of non production of documents, whereas the confirmations were filed, identity proved and all the transactions were through the banking channel. I have found that one of the confirmations as mentioned above is also available on assessment record of the AO. The creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction with the lenders were not doubted. I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has discharged his onus and proved with documents, the Identity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the audited balance sheet as on 31-3-2007 and the funds induced by the appellant as advance from customers and unsecured loans. 5.2.2. On examination of the ledger account and the bank statement it appears that there was a direct nexus with the payment given as advance and its source Further the said source was out of the advance received from customers and the unsecured loans raised during the year The A.O has not established that the borrowed funds were not utilized for business purpose nor he brought on record any finding contrary to the submission of the Appellant. It is the duty and onus is on the AO and the same cannot be discharged, merely by doubts. Further, the submission of the appellant has a reasonable case that the borrowed funds were provided by the bank to the exporter as PCL and FOUBC limits to execute the export orders and bank provide the said limit against the book debts and stocks If the view of the A.O. is to be accepted then there should not be any stock or debtors but as apparent from the audited balance sheet there was in reality a stock of ₹ 24039318/- and debtors of ₹ 11751028/-. 5.2.3 The A.O. has taken the view that the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
