9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quiries and by giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.- Assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No.3136/Ahd/2016 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2019 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R. For The Respondent : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. DR ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad ( CIT(A) for short) dated 29.09.2016 pertaining to the Assessment Year (AY) 2010- 11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33 of P/B). Further, assessee has furnished confirmations of all the persons as well as acknowledgment of ITR and STI of many persons so as to discharge the initial onus cast on the assessee under the scheme of the Act. Please refer Annexure A . AO had issued summons to two parties namely Shri Dasak K. Shah and Smt. Bharti U. Shah u/s 131. Though those persons could not appear before AO, they had filed letters to AO confirming the lactum of having advanced unsecured loans to the assessee (Pgs.85-86 of P/B). Perusal of above referred evidences would reveal that the concerned persons have confirmed the factum of having advanced such sum to the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. 68 does not require an assessee to prove source of the source of deposits. Hence, no addition is called for u/s. 68. Reliance is placed on: * DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.) * Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj.) * CIT vs. Pragati Co. Op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj.) * CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) Having furnished the aforesaid details, the concerned credits, by no stretch of imagination, remain unexplained any further in the assessee s hands. AO and CIT(A) have, rather than commenting on the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee, commented on p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiny kept the loan amount less or than ₹ 20,000/-. Thus, the authorities below are justified for making addition. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition by observing as under:- 5.2 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant. The AO made the impugned addition holding that the explanations and cash book maintained by the appellant were full of discrepancies and it was clear that the cash book was bogus and cooked up to put a veil on the unaccounted cash deposits in her bank account. The appellant, on the other hand, has conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared subsequently to try to camouflage the nature of the deposits in the bank account. In view of the above discussion, the addition of ₹ 5,81,000/- is confirmed. Ground of appeal No. 2 is dismissed. 6. We find merit in contention of the assessee that merely suspicion should not be the basis of addition. There should be some material when the assessee has proved credit by furnishing material in the form of confirmation etc. to discard such evidence. After considering the totality of the facts and the material placed before us we are of the view that the AO should ascertain the veracity of claim of the assessee by summoning the persons who have advanced unsecured loans to the assessee. We therefore set aside the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
