9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eques to the assessee. On these transactions, the learned assessing officer has expressed its doubt about the genuineness of the transaction. This genuineness of the transaction can only be proved by the production of the directors before the assessing officer which assessee has failed to do repeatedly - We set aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to produce the directors of both the lenders companies before the assessing officer for the examination and to explain the source of cash deposited in their bank account before issue of cheques to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 4026/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 15-11-2018 - SHRI AMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he opportunity of rejoinder Ld. CIT confirmed the addition. 5. That the Ld. C I T (Appeal) has overlooked relevant evidences placed on record and thereby lack of investigation even at the request of Appellant. Furthermore repayment aspect of ₹ 10 Lakh loan from Sid Sai Realty (P) Ltd was squared up during the year hence liable to be utmost consideration itself and loan from M/S Harsh Build well (P) Ltd was repaid during the year A.Y. 2015-2016 much before the completion of assessment was not discussed in Ld. C.I.T. 3. Brief facts of the case is that assessee is an individual who is income from business or profession capital gain an income from other sources in the taxable income was declared at ₹ 620320 in return of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing officer applying the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Navodaya Castles private limited 367 ITR 306 made the addition of ₹ 26 lakhs under section 68 of the income tax act and determine the total income of the assessee at ₹ 32 20320/ against the returned income of ₹ 6 20320/ . 4. Assessee agreed with the order of the learned assessing officer preferred an appeal before the learned commissioner of income tax appeals 22, New Delhi. The learned CIT appeal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. He held that since the appellant has claimed that the loan was genuine the onus was on the appellant under section 101 of the evidence act, 1972 to produce the directors and principal officers of the lender ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has failed to produce the creditors/lenders before the learned assessing officer. He further stated that merely filing a confirmation by the lender does not prove the creditworthiness of the lenders. He further submitted that the assessee has been given a loan of ₹ 26,00,000 by 2 companies who have deposited cash prior to giving loan to the assessee shows that these loans are not genuine. He further stated that the assessee has miserably failed to produce the directors of those companies to prove the genuineness of the transaction. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The brief facts show that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he year but filed a return of income of ₹ 120,000. Further prior to the issue of the cheque of ₹ 10 lakhs on 14 2012 to the assessee there was deposit of ₹ 9 lakhs and ₹ 1 lakhs on two different dates prior to the issue of cheques to the assessee. On these transactions, the learned assessing officer has expressed its doubt about the genuineness of the transaction. This genuineness of the transaction can only be proved by the production of the directors before the assessing officer which assessee has failed to do repeatedly. On careful examination of the whole issue, and in the interest of the Justice we set aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
