9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the party which also contains the PAN of the lender (AADPV7541E). We also note the bank statement of the lender is found placed wherein we note that the opening balance as on 14/06/2013 is shown to be 1,37,732,277/- and the transaction on 19/06/2013 and 12/07/2013 has been taken note of. The assessing officer has made the addition simply because the assessee failed to produce the lender. Merely because the assessee failed to produce the lender, cannot be the ground for disbelieving the transaction. The Ld.CIT(A), on the aforesaid facts, discussed, has rightly deleted the addition, which does not need any interference from our side. Therefore, we confirm the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- In the light of the aforesaid CBDT circular which was binding on the Assessing Officer as well as the department and on our factual finding that the transaction was purely commercial in nature does not attract section 2(22)(e) of the Act, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. Ground of the Revenue stands dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealty, proprietorship of the appellant, it appears that the appellant had sufficient cash withdrawals and depositions are made from the same. The appellant also submitted that it had introduced capital into its proprietorship concern from the cash withdrawals of personal accounts. The details of the same were also submitted to the AO during the assessment proceedings. The AO has noted that the cash deposition of Rs.50,00,000 on 24/10/2013 is not out of cash withdrawal made of Rs.50,00,000/- on 23/10/2013 is not convincing as the appellant is doing such transactions frequently. I have perused the bank statement and the cash book. The appellant has withdrawn cash and thereafter, immediately deposited the same into the bank account. The AO at no point of time has been able to prove or substantiate that the cash withdrawal is separate and the cash deposition is separate. He has just relied on his assumptions without corroborating or bringing on record any evidence to substantiate his non-conviction of the cash deposition. In Rajinder Singh Tur vs. Income Tax Officer ITA No.985/Chd/2014), the ChandigarhTribunal has held that cash deposits into bank are allowed if the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,00,000 Out of balance as appearing in cash book 23.05.2013 7,00,000 Out of cash balance as appearing in cash book 24.05.2013 42,000 Out of cash balance as appearing in cash book 04.07.2013 3,00,000 Out of cash balance as appearing in cash book 24.09.2013 5,00,000 Out of cash balance as appearing in cash book 24.10.2013 50,00,000 This amount was withdrawn from his account No.30818461494 with State Bank of India on 23.10.2013 13.11.2013 4,909,000 Out of cash balance as appearing in Cash Book 05.12.2013 25,000 Out of cash balance as appearing in Cash Book 22.01.2014 22,000 Out of cash balance as appearing in Cash Book It is noted that the assessee also filed copy of his account with SBI account No.30818461494 as well as cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d enquiry against the lender on the basis of details provided by the assessee. According to the Ld.CIT(A), as per section 68 of the Act, the initial burden is on the assessee to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor. According to the Ld.CIT(A), by producing the confirmation from the lender, the details of PAN, address, assessee has already submitted. Therefore, according to the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has discharged the onus of proving the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor. Accordingly, he gave relief to the assessee. Aggrieved, Revenue is before us. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that the assessee has taken loan of Rs.50 lakhs from Shri Abdul Kadar Ali Vadgama on 19/06/2013, through cheque No.8,33,979 and the returned the same on 02/07/2013 vide cheque No.833983 and 833964 Rs.25 lakhs. The assessee had filed confirmation from Shri Abdul Kadar Ali Vadgama which shows that the assessee had taken the money on 19/06/2013 and returned it on 02/07/2013. The assessee had filed the confirmation of the party which is seen placed at page 49 of the paper book, which also contains the PAN of the len ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the loan given to the assessee is deemed dividend and since the reserves and surplus of the company is at Rs.21,91,481/- as on 31/03/2014, he restricted the addition (deemed dividend) to Rs.21,91,481/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who was pleased to delete the same. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that the facts narrated by the Assessing Officer is not correct. Certain relevant facts have not been appreciated by the Assessing Officer, therefore, he has made the addition. We note that the Ld.CIT(A) has taken the correct facts regarding the transaction in question. It is noted that the assessee, in order to purchase a flat being constructed by M/s HDPL (project Hicon Meadows Bandra) paid a sum of Rs.1,43,02,000/- in the year 2010. The assessee subsequently paid a further sum of Rs.50 lakhs on 19/10/2013. Later, the Assessing Officer noted that M/s HDPL has not commenced project at Bandra (Hicon Meadows Bandra). Therefore, he demanded the money back from HDPL and received the same on 01-07-2013. Subsequently, they deposited a cheque of Rs.50 lakhs on 23/10/2013 towards flat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
