9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o observe that these are not transactions in day-to-day business of assessee. This is to be appreciated with back ground of the assessee, who is a blind person; who has some relationship with lenders. This way loans were taken by him in personal relation capacity. Whenever any small amounts are being taken from near-and-dear one, then interest and other terms and conditions are not negotiated. It is only on the basis of mutual faith and requirement of particular person. They have confirmed advancement of loans. They appeared before the AO in support of such advancement; they have submitted details of land holding and others source of earnings. To my mind, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the explanation of the assessee. We are satisfied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given a loan of ₹ 5,61,000/- to Shri Shalesh Thaker during the month of August and September, 1996. Shri Shailesh Thaker has issued a cheque bearing no. 105871 drawn on Central Bank of India, Vasna Branch. This cheque was dishnoured and the assessee has filed a criminal complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. In the proceedings before Judicial Magistrate, the assessee has deposed that loan of ₹ 5.00 lakh was given to Shri Shailesh Thaker. Shri Shailesh Thaker has attached copy of crossexamination of the assessee done by his counsel during that proceedings and copy of plaint to the AO along with his tax evasion petition. On the basis of that complaint, the AO has recorded reason that the assessee has filed retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Gopani 80,000 6. Tarkeshwar L. Luhar 75,000 7. He further contended that ₹ 2.16 lakhs is his past savings. ₹ 50,000/- was an advance given earlier, which has been received back by the assessee in this year. This amount has been added by the AO under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The ld.CIT(A) while evaluating evidences, has made discussion with regard to nature of evidence produced by the assessee and how it deserves to be rejected. The discussion made by the ld.CIT(A) reads as under: 3.8 In the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant has furnished the following in respect of the amounts claimed to have been r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said person on various dates in 1991, 1992 1995, aggregating to ₹ 94.000/-. (c) An undated confirmation of account. vi) Rahimkhan Pathan :- a) A Confirmation letter. (b) A certificate dtd. 26,07,2005 of Andhajan Mandal Staff Credit Co-op. Society giving details of loans taken in the said person on Various dates in 1991,1992 1995, aggregating to ₹ 1,05,000/- (c) An undated confirmation of account. 3.9 After careful consideration of the contentions of the A.O., the submissions of the appellant and the various documents furnished by him, I find as under: ( a) As observed by the A.O. the agreements for loan are und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... veral years earlier, i.e., 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 1995 though the impugned loans have been shown as advanced during the year 1996. Thus, there is no nexus between the loans taken from the Society and the alleged loans to the appellant. ( g) From the affidavit filed by the appellant before the City Civil Court, it is evident that the entire money belongs to him, as it is nowhere mentioned in the affidavit that the moneys advanced to Shri Shailesh Thakker belonged to such other persons and that these amounts were liable to be returned to the said alleged lenders. 3.10 In view of the above, I hold that the Assessing officer was justified in treating the amount of ₹ 4,55,000/- as the unexplained investment of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in rejecting the explanation of the assessee. I am satisfied with the kind of evidence produced by the assessee that has discharged his onus as contemplated under section 68 of the Act. Similarly, the assessee is in service getting salary income. He used to manufacture cane furniture i.e. weaving/interlacing of cane in chairs etc. Savings at his end to the extent of ₹ 2.60,000/- cannot be doubted. Therefore, taking into consideration the evidences produced by the assessee, I allow this fold grievance and delete addition of ₹ 7,21,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
