9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the life time of Late, Subair Khan, he had confirmed the transactions with M/s Killi Constructions, however, AO never wanted him to be examined or any evidence collected. Accordingly, we are inclined to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos.45 And 46/Coch/2019 - - - Dated:- 16-5-2019 - S/Shri Chandra Poojari, AM And George George K., JM For the Assessee : Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Adv. For the Revenue : Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-III, Kochi dated 17/12/2018 and pertain to the assessment years 2005- 06 and 2006-07. 2. The assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeal. 1) The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- III, Kochi in ITA No.2/TVM/CIT(A)-lll/2018-19 dated 17.12.2018 for the asst. year 2005-06, is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2) It is respectfully submitted that the proceedings are barred by limitation' and as a consequence thereof th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of hearing. 4. The facts of the case for AY 2005-06 are that as per the balance sheet filed by the assessee, the assessee had an unsecured loan of ₹ 15,00,000/- from Mr. Subair Khan who was the brother-in-law of the Mr. Mohanan Nair (Managing partner of Killi Construction). The Assessing Officer vide order u/s.144 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 27/12/2010 added the said amount as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act as the source was unexplained. Out of the total loan of ₹ 15,00,000/- the source for ₹ 10,00,000/- was explained by the assessee with relevant documents. However, for the remaining ₹ 5,00,000/- the source remained unexplained. Mr. Subair Khan had expired on 08/08/2009 and hence no confirmation was possible from the loan creditor. According to the Assessing Officer, the confirmation letters were produced from the brother and mother of Late Subair Khan which cannot be treated as a valid evidence because the confirmation letters are dated 27/04/2015 and 16/08/2018 which are almost 10 years later than the year in which loan was taken. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had neither provided any evidence with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had already produced confirmation letter from Late Subair Khan, who had provided ₹ 15 lakhs during the Financial year 2004-05 and this is reflected in the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2005. 6.2 It was submitted that the assessee had also filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2005-06 on 11.06.2010 along with Balance Sheet declaring 'Nil' taxable income. It was submitted that in the appeal before the CIT(A), it was found that ₹ 10 lakhs was explained by relevant documents and the same was accepted. It was also found that for the remaining ₹ 5 lakhs the source remained unexplained and hence the same was added. In this connection, it was submitted that Late Subair Khan was closely associated with the project M/s Killi Construction and he was a prospective customer of the project, who had intention to own a convenient place in the upcoming project and payment made towards thereof while construction was in progress. According to the Ld. AR, the Financial Year 2004-05 was the first year of commencement of the firm and it was highly improbable that the assessee had unexplained income, even at the time of commencement of the firm. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which the loan was taken. Accordingly, the amount was added as unexplained loan. 6.5 The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) repeated what the Assessing Officer stated without taking into consideration several different transactions in the ledger credit folio, of Late Subair Khan which took place long before the search u/s 132 was carried out on 11.10.2007 in the premises of Shri. S. Mohanan Nair, Managing Partner of M/s Killi Constructions. Thus, it was submitted that there was no basis to suspect the genuineness of the transactions and the credit worthiness of Late Subair Khan. It was submitted that that during the life time of Late, Subair Khan, he had confirmed the transactions with M/s Killi Constructions, however, the Assessing Officer never wanted him to be examined or any evidence collected. In the above scenario, it was submitted that the addition of ₹ 10,20,000/- for the Assessment Year 2006-07 may be deleted and appeal allowed. 7. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. For the assessment year 2005-06, the assessee received loan of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
