9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest paid thereupon of Rs.7,80,609' respectively involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short 'the Act'. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Both the learned Representatives take us to CIT(A)'s detailed discussion deleting the impugned(s) of unsecured loans and interest thereupon as follows:- "4. I have duly considered the submission of the Ld. AR and the details filed in the form of a paper book. During the F.Y 2011-12, assessee had taken loans from nine family members and relatives, out of which four loans were taken for the first time. From the loan it appears that- (i) Aggregate opening balance of loans i.e b/f loans) was Rs. 42,96,252/- (ii) Aggregate ado of loans was Rs. 6322,00,000/- (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplicitly discharged the requirements U/s 68 of the Act and that onus, i.e. initial burden of proof shirted upon the AO as the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. Since the AO alleged that the loans were bogus, burden lies upon the AO to prove the same by laying evidence. Let us see what discrepancy AO found out in the accounts of five loan creditors. 6.1 Shri Anuvhav Golcha: Shri Anubhav had given fresh loan of Rs. 11,60,00/- as mentioned by the AO. Ld AR ha stated that fresh loans of Rs. 6,80,00/- were given [there were one returned cheque of Rs. 4,80,000/-), which appears to be correct from the details filed. The doubts raised by the AO that a person having total income of Rs. 3,45,494/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee himself had given loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the lender on 04/04/2011 and also received back the same on 03/06/2011. The AO, therefore, of the opinion that a person who had earlier provided loans to another person could not take loans from that person subsequently and accordingly, disallowed the loans of Rs. 26.00 lakhs. This is absurd. Addition cannot be made on mere suspicions and surmises. Ld AR has filed explanation for each and every credit amounts (in the books of lender) used for providing loans with supporting evidences. Thus, the addition made in this regard is also not maintainable. 6.4 Shri Surendra Kumar Golcha and Sons (HUF): This HUF had given fresh loan of Rs. 50,000/-. Here also AO raised doubt that a person having to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requirements U/s 68 of the Act by filing loan confirmation, acknowledgement of income tax return and bank statement of the lenders, who is otherwise his close family member. When the AO doubted about cash deposits in lenders bank account, action lied in the case of the lender. The lender could have been summoned and interrogated to establish that source of said cash was assessee's own. In absence of tat addition made on mere suspicion, cannot be sustained. The ordinary presumption of law is that the apparent state of affairs is real unless the contrary is proved. The AO had not brought any positive material or evidence which would indicate that the addition/disallowance as made were all correct. Law is settled that the fate of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
