9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos.826 & 827/JP/2009 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2014 - SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri P.C. Parwal. For the Respondent : Shri D.C. Sharma - D.R. ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A.M These two appeals by the assessee have been filed against the separate orders each dated 25/08/2009 of ld. CIT (A)-II, Jaipur for the A.Y. 1994-95 1995-96. Since the appeals relate to the same assessee, having common issue involved and were heard together, so, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2 First we will deal with appeal in I.T.A.No. 826/JP/2009. The following grounds have been raised in this appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming an addition of ₹ 1,30,35,000/- u/s 68 by treating the loan received from the following person as non-genuine:- a. Smt. Anupriya Johari 15,00,000/- b. M/s. Trimurti Enterprises 25,00,000/- c. Smt. Sita Devi Johari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to as the Act in short). 4. Facts of the case in brief are that assessment in this case was framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the Act on 28/03/2002. In the said assessment order, an addition of ₹ 1,41,65,000/- was made on account of unexplained unsecured loans. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A), who allowed a relief of ₹ 1,19,15,000/- vide order dated 03/09/2004 and sustained addition of ₹ 22,50,000/-. Against the said order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as the department filed appeals before the ITAT, Jaipur Bench wherein vide order dated 28/02/2007, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer with the following directions:- As we have already held herein above that mere confirmation and payment through account payee cheques are not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the transaction, we thus set aside the first appellate order in this regard also while remanding the matter to the file of the AO to examine the correctness of claim of the assessee in this regard after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted further an addition of ₹ 10,15,000/- on account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ashok Akar No such person resides in this house 2 Girish Paliwal Refused 3 K.D. Patel House closed. No one resides 4 Kamla Patel House closed. No one resides 5. Vimla Sharma Left 6. Western Textiles Left without address 7. Jewer Jewellers Incomplete address 8. Ramji Lal Bittan Lal Panwala Refused 9. Dayal Das No such person resides at the given address. 10 Kalawati No such person resides at the given address. 11 Laxman Das No such person resides at the given address. 12 Suresh Kumar Sharma I ncomplete address 13 Sudhir Patel House closed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment proceedings and this default was attributable on the part of the assessee only. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹ 1,30,35,000/-. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that in the set aside assessment proceedings, vide letter dated 06/09/2007 assessee filed confirmations, affidavits, evidence in regard to receipt payment of loan and all other evidences as available with the assessee in respect of the individual creditors before the Assessing Officer who issued summons under section 131(1) of the Act to those creditors. Summons were served on 10 persons and 03 persons were refused to accept it and in remaining cases, either the house was found closed or the person left without address. It was stated that the assessee filed present addresses, but the summons had not been issued on the new addresses. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition on the ground that further evidence to prove the genuineness of credit was not furnished. It was further submitted that a detailed submission, copy of which is plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bansal Exports 10,00,000/- 4 Shri Ganpat Lal Sarda 75,000/- 5 M/s Italin Jewellery Mfg. Co. 10,08,000/- 6 M/s MEP Engineering 5,00,000/- 7 M/s RK Fine Export 2,74,246/- 8 Shri Shankar Lal Maroo 70,000/- Total 38,27,913/- 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in sustaining the disallowance of ₹ 15,53,037/- (15,51,706 + 1381) out of interest expenses. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not following the directions given by the Hon'ble ITAT in correct prospective in confirming the above addition. 4. The assessee craves to alter, amend, and modify any of the grounds of appeal. 5. Necessary cost be allowed to the assessee. 12. This case was also set aside by the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur vide order dated 31/05/2007 in I.T.A.No. 772/JP/2004 as was done for the preceding year i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
