9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03,382/- (₹ 67,75,000/- + ₹ 72,28,382/-) which exceeded Rs. one crore. Since, the gross annual receipts of the assessee exceeded Rs. one crore and the assessee having not taken prior approval from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, thus, the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad). Therefore, the said exemption was rightly disallowed and as a consequence the excess of income over expenditure shown at ₹ 7,89,745/- was also rightly added to the unsubstantiated unsecured loan and the taxable income of the assessee determined. The aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the authorities cannot be held to be perverse based on non-appreciation of material or based on the misreading of any evidence on record which may warrant interference by this Court. No question of law, much less, substantial question of law arises in the appeal - appeal is dismissed - ITA-471-2018 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 2-4-2019 - MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate and Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained and, thus, added under Section 68 of the Act. After adding this amount of ₹ 67,75,000/- to the gross receipts from fees and interest at ₹ 72,28,382/-, the gross annual receipts came to ₹ 1,40,03,382/- which exceeded ₹ 1 crore. Accordingly, the assessee was not entitled to claim exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the order, Annexure A-3, the assessee filed an appeal on 30.4.2014 (Annexure A-4) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity the CIT(A) ]. The assessee also furnished written pleadings dated 15.5.2015 and 25.6.2015 (Annexure A-5 Colly) before the CIT(A). Pursuant thereto, the CIT(A) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer who issued notice dated 6.8.2015 (Annexure A-6), wherein the Assessing Officer had called 6 of the unsecured loanees to record their statements to verify the genuineness of the cash transactions. It was recorded in the remand report that in response to summons to these persons, the assessee produced only five persons and their statements were recorded under Section 131 of the Act. All these persons had neither produced copy of any income tax return filed by them n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing terms:- I have examined the facts and circumstances of the case. A sum of ₹ 67,75,000/- has been added on account of unsecured loans received. As stated in the assessment order, as well as in the remand report dated 27.11.2015, it is apparent that the lenders of funds have not, at any stage discharged their onus in furnishing documentary evidence in respect of cash deposits made in their accounts and against which loans were advanced to the appellant. It is absolutely clear that the creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transaction is not clear. Moreover, the lenders who were summoned have not submitted their ITRs. In view of the facts laid out above, I confirm the addition of ₹ 67,75,000/-. Also an addition of ₹ 7,89,745/- was made on a/c of the amount confirmed as excess of income over expenditure after withdrawal of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) as the receipts in view of the addition of ₹ 67,75,000/- exceeded Rs. One Crore. Since, the appellant had not submitted the correct position of its gross annual receipts, the finding by the AO which pags the turnover at above Rs. One Crore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Synopsis and case laws cited therein as well as the contentions raised in the written submissions filed by the Ld. DR and the case laws cited therein. We find that a sum of ₹ 67,65,000/- has been added on account of unsecured loan received. We further find that after perusing the assessment records, appellate order and the Remand Report, it is apparent that the lenders of funds have not, at any stage, discharged their onus in furnishing documentary evidence in respect of cash deposits made in their accounts and against which loans were advanced to the assessee. We further note that in this case the creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transaction is not clear. Moreover, the lenders who were summoned by the AO have not submitted their Income Tax Returns. In view of the above facts and circumstances, in our considered opinion, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition in dispute made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground no.2 raised by the assessee. 6.1. With regard to ground no.3 relating to upholdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
