9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned credit to the extent as affirmed in the lower appellate order. Revenue fails to point out any distinction on merits in case of abovestated four creditors vis- -vis the other eleven parties. We quote the decisions of Chanakya Developers [ 2013 (10) TMI 7 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] and CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava, [ 2012 (5) TMI 186 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] reiterating the abovestated view of the hon ble apex court in these facts and hold the assessee to have successfully proved genuineness/creditworthiness of all the impugned unsecured loans hereinabove. The Revenue s sole substantive ground in its appeal fails and assessee s first ground is accepted. - ITA No. 2917 & 2934/Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 7-8-2015 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Revenue : Shri Pradip Kumar Majumdar, Sr.D.R., For the Assessee : S.N. Sopakar, A.R. ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER These cross appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee for A.Y. 2006-07, arise from order of the CIT(A)-XVI, Ahmedabad, dated 23.08.2010 passed in case no.CIT(A)- XVI/Wd-10(4)/093/08-09, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned credits u/s.68 of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal. The CIT(A) has partly accepted its contentions as under: 3.2.1 During the appellate proceedings, the AO was asked to submit the remand report after examining all the lenders regarding the source of advance to the appellant. The AO has submitted the remand report vide letter dt 26-2-2010. Copy of this remand report was given to the appellant for his comments. The remand report submitted by the AO and his comments in respect of 15 lenders is as under :- No. Name of the Depositor (S/Shri) Amt Involved Rs. Summons issued u/s. 131 of the Act on Remarks 1. Niranjan D. Agarwal 1,62,501 12-02-10 Summons issued by Speed Post. However the same was unserved returned to this office On 19-2-10 with the remarks of Postal Deptt that 'Not known'. 2 Smt. Lilaben N. Shah 6,32,313 Summons' issued by Speed Post. However the same was unserved returned to this o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Neither attended nor furnished any written submission. 13 Jitendra S. Mali 3,79,663 Summons issued and served by Speed Post. However the same was unserved and returned to this office on 19-2-10 with remark of Postal Deptt. that 'Not known' 14 Rakeshkumar J Shah 2,71,205 Neither attended nor furnished any written submission. 15. Alpaben N Shah 1,62,834 Summons issued served upon the assssee by Speed Post. However assessee neither attended this office nor furnished any written submission regarding .the issue of loan transaction with M/s. VKA Finance Inv Co. A'bad though it was specifically mentioned in the summons issued u/s. 131 of the IT Act. 3.2.2 In response to the remand report the appellant repeated the submissions made earlier which has been quoted above, the same is therefore not repeated again. 4.1 I have considered the submissions of the appellant and observation of the AO. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en served, some of them have replied others have neither replied nor attended. However during the course of assessment proceedings in respect of all of them copy of bank statement, confirmation, PAN were filed. As per decision of Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation (Supra) the assesses has discharged his onus in respect of those parties. It is the AO who has to bring on the records that the credits / deposits are not genuine. Since the AO has conducted enquiries during the .remand proceedings and has failed to collect any adverse material except saying that the summons were served but theses parties have neither attended nor furnished any submission , hence these loans cannot be added back to the total income and these loans are deleted. 4.4 in view of the above, loan of Shri Niranjan Agarwal Rs.1,62,501/, Lilaben Shah Rs.6,32,313/-, Indrakumar Agarwal Rs.3,78,899/-, Jitendra Mali Rs.3,79,663/- are confirmed and balance are deleted. This ground of appeal is therefore partly allowed. 5. We have heard both sides and gone through the case file. The CIT(A) has confirmed the Assessing Officer s action of adding unsecured loans in case of four parties wherein letter is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
