9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso exactly the same fact is permeating, therefore, following the Tribunal order this amount of ₹ 79,90,000 has to be deleted. On other amount of ₹ 61.50 lakhs also, it is undisputed fact that it has been received from one proprietorship concern of the assessee to another, therefore, it cannot be added as income of the assessee. Thus, on these amounts of loans no adverse inference can be drawn and has rightly been deleted by the CIT(A). As noted above, already an amount of ₹ 46,95,000/- which has been added in the hands of the lenders has already been directed to be deleted by CIT(A) for which there is no dispute by the revenue. Thus, out of ₹ 1,55,10,000/-, sum of ₹ 79,90,000/- and ₹ 61,50,000/- (aggregating ₹ 1,41,40,000) could not have been added in wake of the aforesaid facts. Regarding other small loans also, we agree with the finding of the CIT(A) that the entire onus cast upon the assessee in wake of evidences filed have been fully discharged and accordingly, no addition could be made under the deeming provisions of section 68. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 5059/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 6-5-2016 - Shri R C Sharma And Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the lenders on random basis. In the statement recorded under section 131 of the of the Act from some of the lenders, it was stated by them that they have only received cheques from persons related to Majethia Group for depositing into the bank accounts and cheque for such an amount were taken in the name of persons/entities of the assessee Majethia Group. Some of the lenders were having very meager income. Based on these enquiries, it was deduced that firstly, the lenders were men of little means; secondly, they were not aware of the amounts from whose accounts cheques were issued and deposited in their account; thirdly, none of them had any business relationships with the said persons; fourthly, they were given the cheques by the assessee-group which at times were directly credited by them into their accounts and in turn have issued the cheques in favour of the assessee group; lastly, the return of income in the name of these lenders were filed by the assessee group itself so as to create as semblance of genuineness of transaction. Based on these observations made by the Investigation Wing, AO doubted the whole of unsecured loa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29 The further break up of loans taken from the 29 entities/persons was as under:- Ekta Trading Co. (ETC) S.No. Name of the Party Amount (Rs.) 1 Anish P Parab 4,00,000/- 2 Bharat Kanubhai Shah 3,50,000/- 3 Bharti Suresh Bhanushali 5,00,000/- 4 Champaben G Ruparel 3,50,000/- 5 Chunilal Premji Gosar 5,00,000/- 6 L R Shah (HUF) 4,00,000/- 7 K C Trivedi (HUF) 4,00,000/- 8 K M Developers 61,50,000/- 9 Kalpana Valji Bhanushali 5,00,000/- 10 Khushali Atul Poladiya 5,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the assessee, that is, it has transferred the money from one pocket to another; Lastly, it was clarified that, some of the persons/entities are the sister concerns of the assessee and they were being assessed in the same charge and in their cases this issue of loan given to assessee has been discussed and analysed by the AO. 4. Apart from that, on merits, it was submitted that in order to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the 29 lenders and the genuineness of the transaction, following documents were placed on record before the AO:- a. Copies of confirmation from the lenders; b. Copies of PAN card of the lenders; c. Copies of Ration Card of the lender; d. Copies of Return of Income for AY 2010-11 of the lender e. Copies of Balance Sheet for AY 2010-11 of the lender; f. Copies of Bank statement of the lender highlighting the receipt as well as repayment entries; g. Copies of Bank statement of M/s Ekta Trading and M/s K M Developers showing the receipt as well as repayment of loan entries. A chart was submitted showing the evidences filed in the case of each lender in the paper book before the CIT(A). The detailed of which with regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sakarbhai Nanji Satra YES YES YES YES YES - YES 12 Vasabt Morarji Karani (HUF) YES YES - YES YES - YES Ekta Trading Co. Loan Confirmation Details 01/04/2009 to 31/03/2010 Sr. No Name of the Parties . Confi- rmation IT Return Balance Sheet Bank Stat. PAN Card Our Bank Statement 1 Anish P Parab YES YES -- YES YES YES 2 Bharat Kanubhai Shah YES YES YES YES YES YES 3 Bharti Suresh Bhanushali YES ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S 17 Vinod Tukaram Patekar (HUF) YES YES -- YES YES YES It was submitted that despite all these evidences and without any contrary material, AO has treated the said amount as unexplained cash credit. Regarding other observations of the AO, assessee gave point-wise rebuttal which has been discussed by the Ld. CIT(A) from pages 9 to 13 of the impugned order. It was also clarified that amount aggregating to ₹ 46,95,000/- received from three entities belonging to the family group have already been added in their assessments, therefore, to this extent the amount should be deleted. This amount of ₹ 46,95,000/- were from following persons /entities, which have not been disputed before us also: Sr. No. Name of the Party Amount (Rs.) Remarks 1 M/s Jalaram Enterprises Pvt Ltd. 17,20,000 Also added in M/s Jalaram Enterprises Pvt Ltd. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . That apart, the documents and evidences like income-tax returns, PAN cards, Bank statements have been furnished which shows that the entire onus cast upon the assessee has been discharged. (iv) As regards the AO s observation that the lenders have advanced the loan to M/s Ekta Trading Co out of cash deposits in the account of its lender is not correct and the entire charge in this regard is baseless. From the perusal of the bank statements, she concluded that, it is clearly evident that loans have been advanced with the funds available with the lenders, either of their own or through funds received of the other parties through banking channels. Hence, there is no case for raising any suspicion. (v) As regards the five parties, which have not appeared for cross examination, ld, CIT(A) observed that when the lenders have forwarded their confirmation, PAN card, return of income, bank statement etc. and when the assessee requested the AO to make further enquiries from the respective AOs of the lenders, then AO should have enquired from the AOs of the lenders when their assessment particulars were available. Once it has not been done, then, it was not proper for the AO to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the rival submissions, perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as material placed on records. Here in this case, addition has been made under section 68 on account of unsecured loans received by the assessee in his two proprietorship concerns from various persons as mentioned above. In order to prove the nature and source of the credits, as stipulated under the law, the assessee first of all has given the copy of confirmation/ letters from the lenders; PAN card; return of income along with the Balance sheet for the relevant AY 2010-11; bank statements of the lenders as well as bank statements of two proprietorships showing receipts as well as repayment entries. The summary of the documents/evidences furnished with regard to each and every persons/entities has been already incorporated above in the foregoing paragraphs. At the face of the law, initial burden casts upon the assessee to prove the source of the loan has been stated to be discharged. The revenue s case has been that, the capacity of the lenders has not been proved because these lenders were men of little means or no means and the amount credited in the bank accounts have been rou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that if the receipts and repayment of loan is corroborated by the ledger account and bank entries. Here also exactly the same fact is permeating, therefore, following the Tribunal order this amount of ₹ 79,90,000 has to be deleted. On other amount of ₹ 61.50 lakhs also, it is undisputed fact that it has been received from one proprietorship concern of the assessee to another, therefore, it cannot be added as income of the assessee. Thus, on these amounts of loans no adverse inference can be drawn and has rightly been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). As noted above, already an amount of ₹ 46,95,000/- which has been added in the hands of the lenders has already been directed to be deleted by CIT(A) for which there is no dispute by the revenue. Thus, out of ₹ 1,55,10,000/-, sum of ₹ 79,90,000/- and ₹ 61,50,000/- (aggregating ₹ 1,41,40,000) could not have been added in wake of the aforesaid facts. Regarding other small loans also, we agree with the finding of the CIT(A) that the entire onus cast upon the assessee in wake of evidences filed have been fully discharged and accordingly, no addition could be made under the deeming provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
