9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the farmers in question to verify the facts - HELD THAT:- As submitted that it is the AO who should have issued summons to them to appear. Even assuming that the AO did not do so, the fact remains that the Assessee did not ask for summons to be issued and the Assessee did not produce any fresh affidavits of the lender farmers to confirm that their loans to the Assessee had been repaid to them. The Assessee could have easily done this to satisfy the requirement of the directions of the ITAT in remand. In the present case, factually the ITAT has found the addition to be justified and going by ratio of the aforementioned decision, this Court should not interfere with such factual determination by the ITAT. No substantial question of law a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... went back before the AO, the Assessee did not produce the 200 odd farmers from whom the Assessee had borrowed an unsecured loan of amounts ranging from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.19,500/-. The AO observed that the Assessee had failed to produce those farmers who would have confirmed before the AO that the statement of the Assessee that they had been repaid the loan during the financial year 2013-14 was in fact correct. 5. The above observation of the AO has been concurred with by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] in the order dated 22nd May 2017 where it was observed in paras 2.1 and 2.2 as under: 2.1 In the course of appeal hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the loans in question have been repaid subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not do so, the fact remains that the Assessee did not ask for summons to be issued and the Assessee did not produce any fresh affidavits of the lender farmers to confirm that their loans to the Assessee had been repaid to them. The Assessee could have easily done this to satisfy the requirement of the directions of the ITAT in remand. 7. Learned counsel for the Appellant then cites the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bharat Engineering Construction Co. (1972) 83 ITR 187 (SC). There, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the finding of the ITAT that the Assessee could not have possibly borrowed the huge amounts sought to be added as unexplained cash credit and the Supreme Court deferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
