9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct on record that the assessee, indeed produced the lender for examination before the learned Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings, on which date, the AO was on official duty elsewhere and hence, the lender had handed over all the requisite materials in her possession to the assessee and the assessee had in turn furnished the same before the learned CIT(A). We also find that the learned AR has furnished affidavit from the lender duly confirming the fact of advancement of loan to the assessee by also explaining the business carried on by her. Assessee has also furnished the copy of income tax return acknowledgment of the lender for assessment year 2013-14, wherein, the lender had disclosed taxable income - However, the affidavit a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -14. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,25,000/- by treating the loan received by the assessee from Ms. ManjuTyagi as unexplained cash credit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- from Ms. ManjuTyagi. The assessee furnished the name and address of the lender together with confirmation from the said lender of having advanced money to the assessee. The assessee also furnished the bank statement of the lender wherein it was found that lender had advanced Rs. 5,25,000/- from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder before the lower authorities. The lender is situated in Ghaziabad, which is far away from the place of assessee and, hence, explanation given by the assessee that the lender could not be produced before the learned Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceeding, deserves to be accepted. However, it is a fact on record that the assessee, indeed produced the lender for examination before the learned Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings, on which date, the learned Assessing Officer was on official duty elsewhere and hence, the lender had handed over all the requisite materials in her possession to the assessee and the assessee had in turn furnished the same before the learned CIT(A). We also find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y either issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act or issuing summons to the lender under section 131 of the Act for recording the statement on oath from the lender. Instead, learned Assessing Officer completely shifted the onus on the assessee to produce the party before him for examination. We are unable to comprehend ourselves to accept this behavior of learned Assessing Officer as the assessee, in the instant case, had duly discharged the initial onus cast upon her by producing the requisite details before the learned Assessing Officer. Leaned Assessing Officer has drawn adverse inferences on the assessee without making any independent examination from his side. Hence, by relying upon the recent decision of PCIT Vs. NRA Iron and St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
