9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the same cannot be doubted, accordingly, addition of ₹ 4 Lakh is deleted and balance addition is sustained. This ground of appeal is therefore, partly allowed. Deemed income under section 68 - admission of additional evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions - HELD THAT:- The perusal of details of cash deposits taken by the assessee from various persons shows that same are below ₹ 19,000, which have also been repaid during the year by the assessee. AO has denied the claim of the assessee on the ground that no details were filed before him. However, during the course of appellate proceedings, in order to prove the genuineness of the transactions, the assessee has filed details of these persons giving their iden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty bill, 7/12 extract, confirmation. Therefore, no addition could be made - Decided in favour of the assessee. - I.T.A No.921/AHD/2015 - - - Dated:- 4-2-2020 - Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member And Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member For the Assessee : Shri Mehul Shah - CA For the Revenue : Mrs. Anupama Singla - Sr.D.R. ORDER PER O. P. MEENA, AM: 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-3, Surat (in short the CIT (A) ) dated 12.12.2015 pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09, which in turn has arisen from the assessment order passed under section 143 (3) dated 29.12.2010 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) by the Deputy Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the assessee is not in position to submit this detail. In view of these facts, the addition made by the AO was confirmed. 5. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that with reference to loan of ₹ 1 lacs from Parth K Ghediya, copy of acknowledgement of return of income was filed with copy of bank passbook reflecting withdrawal of entry of loan given to the assessee. Further, the loan of ₹ 3 lac pertains to loan taken through banking channel from a well-established non-resident. Hence, CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the AO. 6. Per contra, the ld. Sr. D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers. In view of these facts, the AO treated the cash deposits as undisclosed income u/s. 68 of the Act. 10. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). It was submitted that cash deposits of ₹ 14,81,650/- included therein dalali income of ₹ 1,01,850/- and balance cash deposits of ₹ 13,79,800/- as cash loan from various persons residing in villages. It was further claimed that the amount was received for investment, as they wanted to do trading in shares through the appellant. Some documents relating to identity, and confirmation from some persons was also filed, wherein, it was contended that the amount given is out of their agricultural income. In remand report, the AO reported that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be doubted. Further, most of the parties are agriculturist and have the source of agricultural income only; hence, the copy of return of income cannot be filed in their case. It was further contended that the amounts received during the year has been repaid during the financial year itself. Hence, the addition made by the AO was not justified. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the following case laws in support of his contention i.e. CIT V. Chanakya Developers [2014] 43 taxmann.com 91 (Gujarat), Bhavesh Khushal Thakkar v. ITO Wd-6[I.T.A.No. 1460/AHD/2015 (Ahmedabad-Trib)] CIT V. Ayachi Chandra Shekhar v. DCIT [2013] 42txcm 251 (Gujarat), CIT v. Tirupati Construction Co. [2015] 55 Taxman 308 (Gujarat), Anurandhati Anilku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quiry by examining these persons to establish whether they have given cash to the assessee for carrying out share trading on their behalf or not . The learned Sr. D.R. contended that identity proof given by the assessee amounts to additional evidence. However, we find that such evidences were submitted before Ld. CIT(A), on which a remand report was duly called for from the AO. Hence, these evidences cannot be treated as additional evidences as claimed by the revenue. We further find support from the decision of Honourable Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Chanakya Developers [2014] 43 taxmann.com 91 (Gujarat) wherein it was held in order to prove genuineness of transaction, relating to receipt of booking amount of flats, supplied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
