9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S BALAKRISHNAN, HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Revenue by : Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT(DR) Assessee by : None ORDER PER S. BALAKRISHNAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, CIT(A) ]-3, Visakhapatnam in Appeal No.587/10764/2019-20/CIT(AA)-3/VSP/2021- 22 dated 25.08.2021 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 and the cross objections are raised by the assessee in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and circumstances of case, the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,85,85,795/- made by the AO towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the unexplained investment of Rs.4,85,85,795/-. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of raw and boiled rice mill during the F.Y.2015-16 relevant to A.Y.2016-17. The assessee filed it s return of income, declaring Nil income for the A.Y.2016-17. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ) was conducted in the case of Sri Gunuputi Lakshmayya Others, in which a sale deed regarding purchase of Sai Kanchana Rice Mill was found and seized. Notices u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A and 143(2) and 142(1) were also issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed return of income, admitting Nil income. During the course of search, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e added to the total income and brought to tax for the A.Y.2016-17. But, since the assessee failed to submit any cogent evidences in support of his claim and in the absence of any corroboratory evidence to substantiate the assessee s explanation, a total amount of Rs.4,85,85,795/- (Rs.4,45,00,000 +2,30,85,795 1,90,00,000) was treated as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee firm in purchase of rice mill for the A.Y.2016-17 towards on money paid beyond the consideration shown in the document u/s 69 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO observing that the sale deed was between the assessee firm and M/s Sri Sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same were repaid after obtaining the bank loans. The assessee was requested to furnish the details of unsecured loans, along with confirmation letters and ID proof of such loan creditors and to produce them for examination. However, the assessee failed to substantiate the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan creditors amounting to Rs.61 lakhs. In the absence of the same, the nature and the source of the loan remains unexplained. Hence, treated the amount of Rs.61 lakhs as unexplained credits and brought to tax for the A.Y.2016-17 as per the provisions of sec.68 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
