9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Mr. Uttam Chordiya has been provided by the assessee. In such a situation, considering the totality of the facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A). Thus, the grounds of the assessee are dismissed. - ITA No.849/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 19-12-2019 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, AM And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM For the Assessee : Shri Suhas Bora. For the Revenue : Shri Houshang Boman Irani. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is emanating out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Pune 1 dated 30.01.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b. The lender has substantial assets. c. That the appellant had complied with all the conditions of Sec. 68 of the Act. d. That the addition made by the AO on the ground the lender had deposited the cash in his saving account is not justified in law. 3. All the grounds being inter-connected are considered together. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO on perusing the Balance-Sheet noticed that there was an addition on account of receipt of share application money of ₹ 1 crore and unsecured loans of ₹ 2,40,45,274/- from Mr. Uttam Chordiya, Director of the assessee company. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of introduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. He accordingly held that assessee has failed to explain the creditworthiness of the transaction of share application money and unsecured loans and therefore made an addition of ₹ 15,57,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who upheld the order of AO by observing as under : 13. I have carefully considered the facts of the case as well as reply of the appellant. In this case, it is clear that the appellant has taken loan of ₹ 15,57,000/- from Mr. Uttam Chordiya, one of the Directors of the company. Out of the above ₹ 2 Lacs were received in cash on 15/9/2002. Regarding balance amount of ₹ 13,57,000/- the AO found that equal amount was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be deleted. Ld. D.R. on the other took us through the order of AO and supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to the addition of ₹ 15,57,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. We find that AO had concluded that assessee has not explained the source of cash deposits in the books of accounts satisfactorily as there was equal amount of cash deposits before the giving of loan by Mr. Uttam Chordiya to assessee. Before us, assessee has not controverted the submissions made by Ld. D.R. but has simply stated that assessee had furnished the confirmation and his PAN No. and thus assessee has complied with the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
