9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prove genuineness of the transaction without first verifying such facts from Income Tax Return. Further, when the amount has been re-paid back which has been accepted by the AO, then no adverse view can be taken as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ayachi [ 2013 (12) TMI 372 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. In view of these facts, the addition together with interest is therefore directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 2911/AHD/2016/SRT - - - Dated:- 14-11-2018 - SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Mehul R. Shah - CA For the Respondent : Shri Vinod Kumar Sr.DR ORDER PER O. P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) wherein the addition in respect of Jasoda S Chaudhari (₹ 2 lakhs) Daxaben B. Kalsariya (₹ 2.60 lakhs) and Babubhai H.Chaudhari (₹ 7 lakhs) with interest were deleted on the ground that they have duly appeared before the AO and filed confirmations, hence addition with interest in respect of these three persons was deleted. However, the addition of ₹ 3,50,000/- + interest of ₹ 6,210/- in respect of Shri Chhaganbhai M Thakore was upheld on the ground that he has denied to have given any loan to the appellant in his statement u/s.131 of the Act. The copy of statement and oath was also provided to the appellant during the appellate proceedings, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... davit. The ld.counsel further submitted that Shri Chhaganbhai M Thakore was not produced before the AO for cross examination even though specifically demanded by the assessee. Therefore, it was submitted that the evidence which is not shown to the assessee cannot be admitted as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC). Further, the amount of Loan has been re-paid during the year under consideration. Therefore, no adverse view is called for and the issue is squarely covered by decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrasekhar Narsang wherein it has been held that where the department had accepted re-payment of loan in subsequent year, no addition was to be ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the bank statement, copy of account and supported by affidavit of the lendor, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the such addition without allowing cross examination to rebut the averments made in the affidavit. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Ranchodbhai J. Natwa (supra) has held that where lendors of the assessee are Income Tax Assessee s whose PAN have been disclosed to AO cannot ask assessee further prove genuineness of the transaction without first verifying such facts from Income Tax Return. Further, when the amount has been re-paid back which has been accepted by the AO, then no adverse view can be taken as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
