9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is a resident and had stated to have received the loan from 2 persons namely Mr Naresh Aggarwal and Gaurav Aggarwal which are credited in the NRI account and there is no dispute to the above fact - assessee had furnished the copy of the confirmation of loan and also the passport of Shri Naresh Aggarwal as evidence. The assessee had also filed the copy of bank account of Naresh Aggarwal, affidavit of Shri Naresh Aggarwal, copy of bank account of Shri Gaurav Aggarwal giving loan of USD 5000 to Nitin Gupta, etc.- Since the assessee, in the instant case, has filed the bank statement of Shri Naresh Aggarwal along with his affidavit and confirmation along with his bank account substantiating the loan of 10000 USD, therefore, hold that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition. Amount of USD 5000 taken from one Shri Gaurav Aggarwal although the assessee had filed the confirmation of Shri Gaurav Aggarwal along with his passport and affidavit, etc., however, no evidence to prove the credit worthiness of the said loan creditor was produced. The bank statement of Shri Gaurav Aggarwal was not produced. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the lender. The AO, therefore, held that the assessee failed to furnish the confirmation in respect of USD 15000 loan equivalent Indian rupee 9,93,000/- for which he added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A), after calling for a remand report from the AO and after considering the rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report, upheld both the additions. So far as the addition of ₹ 4,80,678/- on account of house property is concerned, he upheld the addition made by the AO by observing as under:- 8. Decision 8.1 Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in consultancy services and filed his return of income for the year under consideration showing total income at ₹ 4,89,280/-. The Appellant has reported that he was residing in USA where he purchased an immovable property in 2006-07 out of his earnings and loan taken from foreign Tanks. The property was given on rent. The Assessee earned the rental income of US $ 16,800. The Assessee claimed expenses amounting to US $ 19,060 on account of property tax, interest on housing loan, insurance, etc. It was claimed that the Assessee filed Income Tax Return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eplies / evidences which were considered while completing the assessment. Remaining replies uploaded by the Assessee on 18.12.2018 were not reflected on ITBA Portal. I have considered the report front the Assessing Officer and the application of the Appellant. The technical glitches cannot be taken as ground for the admission of necessary or relevant documents. Therefore, the additional evidences filed by the Appellant are admitted for adjudication. 14.3 The Appellant has stated that the confirmation from the lender is duly signed and supported with the copy of the passport. The loan US $ 15,000 was directly credited In the Chase Bank account held by the Appellant. During the appellate proceedings, it has been submitted that US $ 10,000 was taken from Navin K. Aggarwal and US$ 15,000 taken from Sh.Gaurav Aggarwal. Both the persons are residing in USA. The following documents for explaining the loans have been submitted: a. Confirmation of Account from Navin K. Aggarwal confirming the loan given to Nitin Gupta for 10,000 USD. b. Copy of passport of Navin K. Aggarwal c. Copy of bank Statement of Navin K. Aggarwal with Chase Bank d. Affidavit of Navin K. Aggarwal duly n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore them. Thus, the addition made under section 68 is erroneous, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty proceedings under sec-27i(i)(c) on account of above disallowance treating the same as concealment of income is unwarranted and liable to be quashed. That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. That the appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming both the additions. So far as the addition of ₹ 4,80,678/- on account of income from house property is concerned, the ld. Counsel submitted that for the year under consideration, the assessee had rented out this property and earned total income of ₹ 11,12,160/-. After claiming deduction u/s 24 of the Act towards property tax of ₹ 1,78,277/- and interest on loan and other expenses of ₹ 10,83,495/-, the assessee declared net loss of ₹ 1,49,612/- under the head Income from house property. He submitted that the assessee had filed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee has substantiated before the AO with evidence regarding the identity and credit worthiness of the loan creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is not correct. 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). 8. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I find, the AO, in the instant case, determined the income from house property at ₹ 4,80,678/- as against nil income declared by the assessee by denying deduction on account of property tax, interest on loan, etc., as claimed by the assessee. I find, the ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the AO, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the property tax paid by the assessee was admitted by the AO in the remand report, but, there is no valid reasons for denying the same and the ld.CIT(A), without considering the fact properly has sustained the addition made by the AO. 9. I find some force in the above a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, 2018, had asked the assessee to furnish the confirmation of loan received from Mr. Naresh Aggarwal, NRI (lender). It is seen from the copy of the remand report that the assessee has furnished a confirmation from the lender Mr. Naresh Aggarwal during the course of appeal proceedings. It is the case of the Revenue that the said confirmation was given on plain paper without notarizing the same. I find, the assessee is a resident and had stated to have received the loan from 2 persons namely Mr Naresh Aggarwal and Gaurav Aggarwal which are credited in the NRI account and there is no dispute to the above fact. The assessee had furnished the copy of the confirmation of loan and also the passport of Shri Naresh Aggarwal as evidence. The assessee had also filed the copy of bank account of Naresh Aggarwal, affidavit of Shri Naresh Aggarwal, copy of bank account of Shri Gaurav Aggarwal giving loan of USD 5000 to Nitin Gupta, etc., the details of which are mentioned at para 14.3 of the order of the CIT(A). Since the assessee, in the instant case, has filed the bank statement of Shri Naresh Aggarwal along with his affidavit and confirmation along with his bank account substantiating the loa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
