9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t face value. Accordingly, we remit this issue back to the file of AO, who shall carry out necessary verification and the assessee is directed to fulfill the conditions laid down in section 68 of the Act to establish its case. The assessee is also directed to produce Mr. Ramesh Havele, as Summons issued by Assessing Officer had remained un-complied. Further, Assessing Officer may summon Mr. Prafulla Anil Madiwale, as the facts of the present case are peculiar and require verification. Reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be given to the assessee and the Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue in accordance with law. The grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are thus, allowed. - ITA No.471/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2019 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer s order may be restored. 3. The Revenue is in appeal against deletion of addition made under section 68 of the Act. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing of high quality machines. The assessee had declared unsecured loan of ₹ 1,04,83,000/- from one Mr. Ramesh Havele. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the said loan. In reply, the assessee pointed out that there was opening balance of ₹ 11,83,000/- in the said account and during the year ₹ 93 lakhs was received by account payee cheques. The assessee further explained that actually it was money received from Mr. Prafulla Anil Madiwale by cheque as advance against p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled on the front of genuineness. He pointed out that if the bank account entries were noted, there was pattern of credit and debit entries and he has scanned and reproduced bank entries at pages 4 to 6 of assessment order. The pattern of transaction was money deposited or transferred by Mr. Ramesh Havele a day before or so in the account of Mr. Prafulla Anil Madiwale and next day or on the same day Mr. Prafulla Anil Madiwale transferred it to the account of assessee. Thus, the claim of assessee that unsecured loan was given by Mr. Prafulla Anil Madiwale was not accepted to be genuine. Further, where the transaction was entered through bank accounts and taking into consideration the financial position of Mr. Prafulla Anil Madiwale, the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not proved and hence, sum of ₹ 93 lakhs was added to the income of assessee. 6. The CIT(A) on the other hand, refers to an affidavit filed by assessee that by an inadvertent mistake on the part of his accountant, the entries were posted in the wrong name. The CIT(A) further refers to confirmation of transaction from Mr. Prafulla Anil Madiwale and from the bank account of Mr. Prafulla Anil Madiwale, the CIT(A) holds that the person had received total sum of ₹ 2.33 crores from Mr. Ramesh Havele and only ₹ 93 lakhs was transferred to assessee. Relying on the bank statement of Mr. Prafulla Anil Madiwale, the CIT(A) accepts that the amount had been received by assessee in the form of loan. He further mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing in the present appeal is against addition made under section 68 of the Act. There are three ingredients of said section 68 of the Act, which need to be fulfilled by the assessee. The first is identity of creditor, second is creditworthiness of creditor and third is genuineness of transaction. All the three ingredients need to be fulfilled by the assessee justifying the loan, if any raised during the year. 11. Now, coming to the facts of the case, first is identity; the assessee in the books of account mentioned that it had received loan of ₹ 93 lakhs from Mr. Ramesh Havele; but during assessment proceedings the assessee changed its stand and says it wrongly mentioned the name as Mr. Ramesh Havele instead of Mr. Praf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all carry out necessary verification and the assessee is directed to fulfill the conditions laid down in section 68 of the Act to establish its case. The assessee is also directed to produce Mr. Ramesh Havele, as Summons issued by Assessing Officer had remained un-complied. Further, Assessing Officer may summon Mr. Prafulla Anil Madiwale, as the facts of the present case are peculiar and require verification. Reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be given to the assessee and the Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue in accordance with law. The grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are thus, allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced on this 15th day of July, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
