9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 11-8-2020 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Ms. Rano Jain, Adv., Shri Pranshu Singhal, CA, Ms. Mansi Jain, CA For the Respondent : Shri. R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 27/02/2019 passed by the learned CIT(Appeals)-5, New Delhi [in short the Learned CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2015-16 raising following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad, both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts. The Assessing Officer called for details in respect of the unsecured loan received during the year under consideration but the assessee failed to furnish Income-tax particulars of the unsecured loan parties and stated that those parties did not file their income-tax return. In response to the show cause notice issued, the assessee vide letter dated 20/12/2017 (i.e. on the date of the order) filed reply, which has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. According to the reply of the assessee, unsecured loans were received from following persons and they did not file their return of Income being income below the exemption limit: 1. Mrs. Sunita Mittal, wife of the assessee- source of money in her hand was expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the balance sheet of appellant that ₹ 2,25,000/- has been shown as unsecured loan from Atul Mittal (HUF) as on 31.03.2015. During appellate proceedings a confirmation was submitted from Atul Mittal (HUF) for confirming such balance. Alongwith this, a photo copy of bank statement has been provided, wherein certain cash deposits are reflected and also shown the money paid to the appellant. It is interesting to note that this is the HUF of appellant himself and no source of income has been provided for such HUF to generate and justify these cash deposit. Further, the confirmation is not duly signed by the appellant in his capacity as individual and the address in the bank account is mentioned as B-2/7, Main Wali Nagar, Delhi-87, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is repaid on 19.02.2015. it is also seen from the said conformation that Mrs. Sunita Mittal have been provided interest of ₹ 2,02,500/- during the year under consideration, which is not shown as income by Mrs. Sunita Mittal as per her statement of income. If this amount is considered, the income of Mrs. Sunita Mittal will be above taxable limits. This action of not showing interest income appears to be an attempt to show that Mrs. Sunita Mittal is not suppose to submit return of income, which is against the facts. 6.6 Further, the total loan amount received by Mrs. Sunita Mittal does not match with the loans given to the appellant which is much lower than the loans given and no statement of affairs of Mrs. Sunita Mittal ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above two parties during the year under consideration and the balance as on 31/03/2015 stood the same as of the opening balance, because of that reason, the addition of these amounts under section 68 of the Act was not justified. The learned counsel refer to the confirmation ledger of the parties filed at page No. 41 and 42 of the paper-book. 4.2 On perusal of the order of the lower authorities, we find that the plea of unsecured loan received from Atul Mittal (HUF) in earlier year, has been made for the first time and therefore, the claim of the assessee along with documentary evidences, to substantiate that said loan was not received in the year under consideration, could not be examined by the lower authorities. 4.3 Regarding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... She submitted that total ₹ 57,71,100/- was received from Sunita Mittal during the year under consideration but out of which ₹ 17,50,845/- was returned back and net balance of ₹ 40,20,255/- was outstanding as unsecured loan as on 31/03/2015. The said ledger account is reproduced as under: 4.6 It has been claimed that Mrs. Sunita Mittal did not file Income-tax return for the assessment year concerned being income below exemption limit, but money was given out of the money received from Mr. H.K. Agrawal, M/s. Arjun Gupta (HUF) and salary received. The learned counsel in synopsis has filed source of each amount of the credit along with confirmation from M/s HK Agrwal, ITR return of HK Agrwal, Confirmation from M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
