9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade Garments and leather goods. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.93,660/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2017 and the total income was determined at Rs.51,93,660/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 31.01.2020 in Appeal No.25/10145/18-19 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred: 1. In sustaining the addition of Rs.27,50,000/- out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received unsecured loan amounting to Rs.51,00,000/- to attend the office on 13.11.2017. AO has noted that neither Hitesh Bhatia attended nor furnished any details. While making the addition AO also noted that in the bank account of Hitesh Bhatia there were cash deposits. He further noted that on various dates there were deposits either by cash/RTGS/Cheque and on very next day or in couple of day there were debit entries. He therefore held that the bank statement of the assessee did not inspire confidence. He therefore considered Rs.51,00,000/- received from Hitesh Bhatia as unsecured cash credit and made its addition u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) after considering the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a partner. She further submitted that assessee had established the source of loan in its hand by proving the identity and creditworthiness of the person from whom loan was received and the genuineness of transaction. She further submitted that assessee was not required to establish the source of source. She thus submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.27,50,000/-. 9. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities and further pointed to the findings of CIT(A). 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the addition u/s 68 of the Act. Section 68 of the Act inter alia provides that wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
