9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding on remand reports. Revenue has not raised any plea that any additional evidence was entertained by the ld.CIT(A) in violation of Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules. We have duly extracted grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue. Taking into consideration, the detailed order of the ld.CIT(A) on both the issues, we do not find any reasons to interfere in it. Hence, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 2484/Ahd/2015 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2019 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri O.P. Vaishanav, CIT-DR For The Assessee : Shri K.P. Singh, AR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-1, Vadodara dated 15.6.2015 passed for the Asstt.Year 2010-11. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue read as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld.CIT(A] was correct by deleting the addition of ₹ 35233234/- made on Foreign Remitance from LTC College London (U.K.) terming as loan remitted though banking channel by ignoring as commission or as against invoice which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, we are not concerned with that item. Our inquiry in the present appeal will be confined to two additions made by the AO on account of unsecured loans and unexplained cash credit. These additions have been partly deleted by the CIT(A), and these two deletions are being challenged by the Revenue in its ground nos.1 and 2. First we take deletion of ₹ 3,52,33,234/-. 4. It is pertinent to observe that allegation against the assessee was that it had received ₹ 4,56,53,146/- crores from LTCC . However, on further verification, it revealed that actual amount was ₹ 4,18,45,447/- and not ₹ 4,65,53,146/-. Difference of ₹ 47,07,699/- was stated to be the liability of the assessee, and not a unsecured loan. The ld.CIT(A) while deciding the appeal, has observed that the AO would verify whether the amount of ₹ 47,07,699/- is a liability, and if it is a liability, then it is to be deleted. Thus, the amount which required to be explained by the assessee comes out to ₹ 4,18,45,447/-. The ld.CIT(A) while deleting this addition partly has made an elaborate discussion. He made reference about two remand reports submitted by the AO dated 26.3.2015 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otak Mahindra Bank. Thus, as per the AO the appellant could not file confirmation regarding rest of the amounts of ₹ 66,12,213/-. Thus, as per the findings of the AO the LTC College, London has filed confirmation in respect of loan of ₹ 3,52,33,234/- and in respect of remaining amount of ₹ 66,12,213/- no any confirmation is filed by the LTC College, London. The total of ₹ 3,52,33,234/- and ₹ 66,12,213/- comes to ₹ 4,18,45,447/-. With regard to another amount of ₹ 47,07,699/- (i.e. 4,65,53,146 - ₹ 4,18,45,447), the AO in his remand report dated 11/06/2015 has reproduced the reply of the appellant and as per which the total foreign remittance in the case of appellant was ₹ 4,18,45,447/- only whereas the appellant has shown the liability of ₹ 4.65 crores. Thus, as per this reply of the appellant as reproduced by the AO in his remand report dated 11/06/2015, there was only foreign remittance to the extent of ₹ 4,18,45,447/- and this amount of ₹ 47,07,699/- was not part of this foreign remittance. It means that this particular amount of ₹ 47,07,699/- was the part of the amount of ₹ 2,31,82,416/- which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alance as on 31/03/2010 at ₹ 4,18,45,447/-. However, this LTC College, London in its second confirmation dated 26/05/2015 has clarified that the loan amount given to the appellant was only ₹ 3,52,33,234/- and not ₹ 4,18,45,447/-. As stated earlier that the AO has mentioned in his remand report dated 11/06/2015 that the appellant has filed confirmation from the LTC College, London only for ₹ 3,52,33,234/- and for remaining amount of ₹ 66,12,213/- no any loan confirmation could be filed. The AO has further mentioned in this remand report dated 11/06/2015 that out of this total amount of ₹ 3,52,33,234/- as confirmed by LTC College, London, an amount of ₹ 2,59,58,905/- is deposited in the HDFC Bank and amount of ₹ 92,74,328/- is deposited in the Kotak Mahindra Bank. Thus, the AO in his remand report dated 11/06/2015 has confirmed that the LTC College, London is the remitter of total amount of ₹ 3,52,33,234/- (i.e. ₹ 2,59,58,905 and ₹ 92,74,328) and these funds have been transferred by LTC College, London to the appellant through banking channel only. Thus, the AO has not raised any doubt so far as identity of LTC College ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Brief facts of the case are that on perusal of two bank statements i.e HDFC Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank, the ld.AO observed that a sum of ₹ 1.43 crores was deposited in these two accounts in cash. He further observed that ₹ 58 lakhs were deposited in HDFC Bank and ₹ 85.50 lakhs deposited in Kotak Mahindra Bank. He confronted the assessee to explain source of above deposits. Assessee contended that these deposits were made out of the withdrawals from these banks, and the assessee has submitted reconciliation. But the ld.AO was not satisfied. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has further analysed and correlated how each deposit is conciled with the available cash withdrawn from the bank accounts. The ld.CIT(A) has called for remand report from the AO, thereafter reproduced the reconciliation statement on page no.34 to 36 of the impugned order. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) made lucid analysis of these details and deleted the addition to the extent of ₹ 1,34,19,000/-. The ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition at ₹ 8,81,000/- out of ₹ 1.43 crores. The finding recorded by the ld.CIT(A) on this issue reads as under : 15.5 Thus, the undisputed fact is that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e total amount as shown by the appellant as per the reconciliation of the cash entry with cash book is coming to ₹ 1,34,19,000/- only and therefore this addition of ₹ 1,34,19,000/- is hereby deleted by treating the same as explained. As regards remaining addition of ₹ 8,81,000/-, the same is confirmed for want of any explanation/evidence. Thus, the ground of appeal no. 3 of the appellant is partly allowed. 6. With the assistance of ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. Section 68 of the Income Tax Act contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited in the accounts may be treated as income of the assessee of that previous year. 7. A perusal of the record would indicate that with regard to remittance from LTCC , the ld.AO harboured a belief that it was a commission received from this college, and it deserves to be treated as income of the assessee. However, when further details wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
