9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh books are written on day to day basis, but in practice, there is always a time gap between the book entries. Books were lying with the CA, which have also been verified by the Assessing Officer and when during the course of assessment proceedings books were produced, not even a single defect has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the books of account of the assessee. We are of the considered view that the entire addition has been made on the basis of suspicions and surmises and such additions cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 1 crore. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Addition u/s 68 - assessee was asked to produce all the creditors personally but could produce only one person, namely, Shri Neetu Nayyar - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that all the lenders are either directors or relatives of the directors. It is also true that the assessee has furnished PAN details, bank statements, confirmations and copies of Income tax returns of the lenders. It is equally true that none of the lenders is alleged to be an entry provider. A perusal of thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer observed that no proper books of account were available at the office premises. The Director Shri Neetu Nayyar claimed that cash seized by police was duly recorded in the books of account and, accordingly, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce the books of account. 6. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, once again the assessee was asked to furnish details of source of ₹ 1 crore found and seized by the police. 7. The assessee furnished details of cash in hand as under: S. No. A.Y. Date of Filing Cash in Hand as per Balance Sheet 1. 2005-06 09.09.2005 4613499.11 2. 2006-07 15.09.2006 5321019.11 3. 2007-08 06.10.2007 3419131.42 4. 2008-09 30.09.2008 2873520.19 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessee further stated that merely because the cash bundles carry the slip of PNB, Hissar, would not justify the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in as much as many a times banks give cash which was received by it from the depositor as it is and, therefore, some cash must have been deposited which carried the tag of PNB, Hissar and the same cash was given by HDFC Bank to the assessee. 13. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and reiterated what has been stated in the assessment order. 14. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the assessee is an authorised money changer. In our considered opinion, this line of business required availability of cash in huge amount as the persons give dollars to be exchanged in Indian currency. Considering the exchange rate, the assessee has to carry heavy cash. To this extent, we do not find any quarrel between the assessee and the revenue. 15. The main reason which we find is that the cash bundles carry the tag of PNB, Hissar. Again, in our considered view, this should not be given weightage in as much as it is a ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. The assessee was asked to justify the unsecured loans in the light of provisions of section 68 of the Act. The assessee submitted all the bank statements alongwith copies of confirmations. The assessee was asked to produce all the creditors personally but could produce only one person, namely, Shri Neetu Nayyar. The Assessing Officer was of the firm belief that the assessee has failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon it by provisions of section 68 of the Act and accordingly, made addition of ₹ 2.56 crores u/s 68 of the Act. 20. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and once again furnished all the relevant documents to justify the loan. 21. After considering all the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) held as under: I have gone through the assessment order of the AO, written submissions paper book of the assessee. In the assessment order the AO has treated the unsecured loans of ₹ 2.56 crores received by the appellant from various parties as unexplained and added the same to the income of the appellant under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. On going through the paper book, I notice that the appellant in order to disch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the lower authorities. 23. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that all the lenders are either directors or relatives of the directors. It is also true that the assessee has furnished PAN details, bank statements, confirmations and copies of Income tax returns of the lenders. It is equally true that none of the lenders is alleged to be an entry provider. A perusal of their bank statements reveals that they have given loan to the assessee out of their available balances and it is not the case of the Revenue that prior to issuing cheques, there is a deposit of cash in the lender s bank account. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the assessee has not purchased cheque by paying cash. Considering the evidences which are before us in the form of paper book and considering the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition after carefully perusing the documents, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 24. In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No. 2515/DEL/2015 is allowed whereas the appeal of the reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
