9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee having been rendered in the case of Smt. Sudha Loyalka vs. ITO [ 2018 (7) TMI 1892 - ITAT DELHI] wherein it was held that non mentioning the precise section makes the addition bad in law. Even if we accept the argument of revenue that this addition is u/s 68 because this addition is made by the AO by holding that loan shown by the assessee is added because creditworthiness of the loan creditor is not established, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has established the creditworthiness of his wife by bringing a certificate of Village Administrative Officer that the wife of the assessee is holding 5 Acres of Agricultural Land and she is growing Banana, Cabbage, Beans, Carrot, Ragi, Neelagiri and other fruits and vegetables ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making this addition of ₹ 57,09,961/-. He further pointed out that in the order of CIT (A) also, the addition is although confirmed by him but it is not specified as to under which section, he is confirming the addition. He submitted that under these facts, this tribunal order is squarely applicable and the entire addition made by the AO is bad in law. Thereafter he submitted that the total addition made by the AO of ₹ 57,09,961/- includes three items i.e. ₹ 30,21,961/- received by the assessee from his spouse Mrs. Bhaghya Ramesh, ₹ 17,44,000/- received from Mr. Krishna Reddy and ₹ 944,000/- received from Mr. Lakshman A. He pointed out that the amounts received by the assessee from Mr. Krishna Reddy and Mr. Lak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advancing ₹ 30,21,961/- to the assessee and this addition is not justified for this reason also. As against this, learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that regarding two amounts shown by the assessee as opening balance, he has nothing to say but about the third amount of ₹ 30,21,961/-, he submitted that this addition should be confirmed because in the certificate of Village Administrative Officer, some crops are stated but without quantity and without the rate and name of buyer and therefore, on the basis of this certificate, the claim of the assessee should not be accepted that the wife of the assessee was capable of advancing ₹ 30,21,961/- to the assessee. About this argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
