9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said DD has been taken from M/s Vysya Bank, Bidar Branch. We further noted that M/s Sangameshwara Enterprises is also assessed to income tax at Gulbarga. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, no additions could be made in respect of DD taken from M/s Sangameshwara Enterprises. As regards amount received from Sheri. Negara, although the assessee has filed confirmation letter along with affidavit from the person who gave the DD, but fact remains that the details of pan numbers and income tax assessment of Shri Nagaraj has not been furnished so as to ascertain whether Shri Nagaraj is having sufficient source of income to explain the DD issued on behalf of assessee. From the above, it is clear that addition made towards DD taken from Shri. Nagaraj to the extent of ₹ 5.00 lakhs remains unexplained. There is no error in the findings recorded by the AO as well as the ld.CIT (A) to confirm the addition. Addition made for DD received from Shri V.B.Manik Rao - As explained in the light of the findings of the Tribunal Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that once the assessee has given the details of income tax assessment of person who gave the DD, merely for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition in respect of DD's purchased by U.G.Rajput. Hubli Solely on the ground that, PAN Details are not available. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition in respect of B.Manik Rao, though the said transaction is a double entry, one in the name of Sangameshwara Enterprises and the other B.Manik Rao, who is the partner in the same firm and there was only one demand draft bearing No.7074724 ii.../e7 dated 03.05.2000 issued by Vyasya Bank, Bidar for ₹ 5,00,000/-. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to consider that, there were no credits in the books of accounts or in bank accounts, in the name of the Appellant, in order to attract the provisions of section 68 of the Income tax Act, nor the appellant made any investment to attract the provision of section 69 or 69 A of the Income tax Act. 8. The Appellant has discharged the burden by providing confirmation letters and in absence of denial of the purchase of demand drafts from the banks by above persons, no addition is called for in appellant's case. 9. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of 5 persons has been confirmed on the ground that although, assessee has filed confirmation letters but has failed to mention Pan numbers in respect of those parties, thereby failed to prove the source. 3. Being aggrieved by the ld.CIT (A) s order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition to the extent of ₹ 22.00 lakhs in respect of 5 parties on the ground that no pan numbers were given in their confirmation letters, ignoring the specific direction of the ITAT that, if the assessee is able to show the confirmation and the related DD numbers and source of raising the amount, then the additions would not stand. The ld. AR submitted that although, the AO has stated that the assessee has not submitted any confirmation letters, but fact remains that the assesssee has filed confirmation letters from all the parties and explained the source of income. He further argued that most of the DDs given for bidding purpose has been returned back to the persons after the auction without recording the same in the books of accounts of the assessee and hence, the provisions of sec.68 or 69A of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been furnished so as to ascertain whether Shri Nagaraj is having sufficient source of income to explain the DD issued on behalf of assessee. From the above, it is clear that addition made towards DD taken from Shri. Nagaraj to the extent of ₹ 5.00 lakhs remains unexplained. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the findings recorded by the AO as well as the ld.CIT (A) to confirm the addition and hence, a finding of the ld. CIT (A) is upheld. Similarly, in respect of DD received from Shri N.R.Veerappa amounting to ₹ 5.00 lakhs, on a perusal of confirmation letter issued by assessee, we find that the party has confirmed DD amount along with his pan number and said DD was returned back to the person immediately after the bidding. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that the assessee has satisfied the conditions as per the direction of ITAT to establish the source of income and hence, addition made towards DD taken from Shri N.R.Veerappa amounting to ₹ 5.00 lakhs is unwarranted and accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition made towards DD received from Shri N.R.Veerappa. As regards the DD taken from Shri U.G.Roh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
