9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny collateral security or guarantee, which appears to be unreasonable and far from reality. Based on this remand report, CIT(A) also observed that creditors are having meagre extent of land and the agricultural income of these land holdings would be sufficient only to manage their livelihood and domestic expenditure. CIT(A) further held that persons with lower income, advancing such a huge amount in a single day is improbable. The main contention of the assessee is that there is nothing wrong in receiving the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- in a single day and they all are agriculturists and they have accumulated profits from their agricultural holdings. But there is no satisfactory evidence about the credit worthiness of the creditors. We are of the view that the assessee failed to establish about the genuineness of the loan transactions except filing the affidavits. Even before us also the assessee has not filed any satisfactory evidence about the loan transactions. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the lower authorities and the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Unexplained capital/Investment - AO noted that the assessee has made total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the capital investment made in the concern, he has not given any relief in respect of the same. 4. The Appellant crave leave to add to / alter / substitute / delete / modify all or any of the above grounds. PRAYER : The appellant prays for relief in terms of the above grounds. 3. Ground No.1 and 4 are general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 4. Ground No.2 is related to loan creditors of Rs.25,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) observed that the assessee has shown unsecured loans of Rs.25,00,000/-, but failed to furnish any documentary evidences in support of identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The claim of unsecured loans by the assessee stood unproved and hence, the AO added the same to the income of assessee, treating the same as income from other sources. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and submitted during the appellate proceedings, that the assessee was not given opportunity to produce the creditors to prove the genuineness of the unsecured loan credits amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- and produced copies of affidavits of loan creditors. The Ld.CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of evidence. The Ld.CIT(A) further held that advancing the impugned amounts on a single day in all cases is quiet improbable considering the economic capacity and circumstances. Therefore, held that the AO has correctly made the addition and upheld the same. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO and requested to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and delete the addition made by the AO. 7. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly upheld the addition made by the AO in the absence of documentary evidences in support of identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction and therefore, requested to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised by the assessee. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The main grievance of the assessee is that the lower authorities have not properly appreciated the evidences placed before the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee filed some details during the first appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otal payments made during the months of June 2010 and July 2010 of Rs.20,33,333/- towards initial license fee, their first purchase of stock from APBCL before commencement of sale in wine shop, the capital balance shown in balance sheet by the assessee as on 31.03.2011 is Rs.12,87,340/-. The assessee was asked to explain the sources for fresh capital introduced during the financial year of Rs.7,97,500/- with supporting evidences, but the assessee failed to prove the sources for capital contribution by any documentary evidences even though sufficient opportunities were afforded. Thus the AO observed that in the absence of any documentary evidence, it can only be construed that the amount for introduction of fresh capital was met out from unexplained sources made addition under the head income from other sources . 10. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee held that the assessee has failed to explain his source for capital of Rs.7,97,500/-. The claim of agricultural income in the earlier years and their accumulation was not substantiated with any evidence. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
