TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d proceedings Shri Gaurav Viradia did not cause appearance in person, does not lead to the inference that the identity of lender or his creditworthiness has not been established by the assessee. In view of the above facts, we are of the considered view, that no addition under section 68 of the Act is called for in the case of Shri Gaurav Viradia. For the other lender assessee has been unable to give any plausible explanation as to why cash was deposited in the bank account of the lender immediately prior to extending loan to the assessee. Also, there is an apparent contradiction in the stand taken by the assessee with respect to the date on which loan was extended to the assessee. Accordingly, assessee has not been able to establish the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs, on account of unexplained cash credits. However, out of the above amounts confirmed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee would be only pressing/making arguments with respect to only two parties (Shri Gaurav Viradia and Shri Alpesh Patel) amounting to ₹ 37 lakhs approximately. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is the business of diamond trading and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee received unsecured loans from various parties, more particularly two parties i.e. Gaurav Viradia (_ 29 lakhs) and Alpesh Patel (_ 8 lakhs) and assessee has not been able to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the parties. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction reflected in his books, which he failed to discharge. The appellant's rejoinder to remand report on this issue has also been considered and found that nothing new is furnished to counter the report of AO. In view of this addition to the extent of Rs. 29,00,000/-is upheld. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5.3.3 In the case of loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- from Shri Alpesh(Kavabhai Patel) the appellant has filed confirmation and bank statement. In the remand report, AO has drawn adverse inference with regard to this transaction. AO has stated that Shri Alpesh deposited cash prior to extending loan to appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a total amount of ₹ 33 lakhs from Shri Gaurav Viradia and had returned an amount of ₹ 4 lakhs to the above party. The counsel for the assessee submitted that in the instant facts, there is no allegation on part of the Department with respect to any cash deposits being made in the account of the lender before the amount was given to the assessee. Further, from the return of income of Shri Gaurav Viradia, it is evident that for all the year under consideration, he has filed return of income declaring income upwards of ₹ 6 lakhs. Further, it has not disputed by the Department that the assessee has also placed confirmation of Shri Gaurav Viradia on record. In view of the above, the addition is not liable to be sustained. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the lender shows certain apparent discrepancies, for which no plausible explanation has been given by the assessee. Therefore, in the instant facts, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition with respect to the aforesaid lender. The assessee has been unable to give any plausible explanation as to why cash was deposited in the bank account of the lender immediately prior to extending loan to the assessee. Also, there is an apparent contradiction in the stand taken by the assessee with respect to the date on which loan was extended to the assessee. Accordingly, looking into the facts of the instant case, in our considered view, the assessee has not been able to establi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|