9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash creditor, creditworthiness and proof of genuineness of the transaction, A.O. rightly made the addition which has been confirmed by the CIT(A). In so far as, loan from Kanta Rani Gulati is concerned also the assessee has not furnished any details to explain the nature and source of the credit before the A.O. or before the CIT(A). Appeal of the assessee dismissed. - Dr. B.R.R.Kumar, Accountant Member And Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Mr. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: The both appeals filed by Assessee against the common order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, New Delhi [ Ld. CIT(A) , for short], dated 09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the point at issue inasmuch as the identity, capacity and genuineness of the transaction is fully established. 8. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. ITA No.4725/Del/2018 for AY 2010-11 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs 5,02,04,930/- (Rs. 2,25,04.930/- from Ms Meghna Bhardwaj Rs. 1,77,00,000/- from Ms Shivani Bhardwaj Rs. 1,00,00,00/- from Ms Kantarani Gulati) as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate the evidence on record and reproduced by him in his order, particularly para 7 of the said order and othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee filed return declaring loss at Rs. 30,25,24,938/- an assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by making disallowance of loss or sale of capital asset of Rs. 10,61,174/- qua disallowance of claim interest on TDS Rs. 38,023/- and made addition of Rs. 5,02,04,930/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30/03/2013, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 09/03/2018 dismissed the Appeal filed by the assessee. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that both the Lower Authorities committed no error in deciding the issues before them and by relying on the assessment order on CIT(A) prayed for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o her AR. The Assessing Officer observed that the above letter of Mrs. Meghna Bhardwaj is signed in ink and such letter could have been received through courier. The AR of the above Mrs. Meghna Bhardwaj was required to furnish copy of the passport and air tickets to prove that she is not in India. The AR was asked to produce the said creditor on 28.03.2013. No compliance was made and, therefore, the Assessing Officer considered the loan of Rs. 2.25.04.930 as unexplained cash credit. With regard to the unsecured loan of Rs. 62.00.000/- and share application of money of Rs. 1.15,00,000/- from Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj, there was no compliance except for filing confirmation on 08.03.2013. No compliance with a summons issued to Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l onus u/s 68 of the Act either before the A.O. or before the CIT(A). Thus, in the absence of any documentary evidence to establish identity of cash creditor, creditworthiness and proof of genuineness of the transaction, the A.O. rightly made the addition which has been confirmed by the CIT(A). In so far as, loan from Kanta Rani Gulati is concerned also the assessee has not furnished any details to explain the nature and source of the credit before the A.O. or before the CIT(A). 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the grounds of appeal of the assessee, accordingly the grounds of Appeal of the assessee are dismissed. 8. In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 4725/Del/2018 is dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount of Rs. 3,88,00,000/- was. transferred from personal bank account of the Appellant but there is no evidence to prove how the balance amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- was deposited on behalf of the said Mrs. Bhardwaj to the Appellant company. Hence, the creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions remained unsatisfied. Before me during appellate proceedings also, no fresh evidences have been submitted in support of source of Rs. 3,88,00,000/- transferred from the bank account of the Appellant and the remaining amount of a? by the Appellant is the identity of the loan creditor but since the transaction is in the nature of cash credit, the Appellant is under obligation to prove creditworthiness of the cash creditor and genuinenes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
