9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts proper perspective that too on the basis of the documents placed before them. Whereas, in this particular case the documents mainly the legal notices were not been considered in its true sense. Neither we find, any other iota of evidence in support of such observation made by authorities below against the appellant so as to substantiate the addition made u/s. 69 to the impugned amount - Hence we do not find any cogent reason in making such addition particularly when both the parties in dispute are denying the repayment of loan of Rs. 50 Lakhs by cash. Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri V. Chandrashekhar, Advocate For the Revenue : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.09.2021 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-2, Bangalore arising out of the order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the Ld.DCIT, Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for A.Y. 2011-12 whereby and whereunder th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .53 contains details of loan given by M/s. Eurekha Builders to Mr. K. P.Nanjundi. As per this the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ - was given to K.P.Nanjundi on 27.11.2010. The learned Assessing Officer further reproduced the statement recorded from Mr. M.K.Ramakrishna being question No.13 and answer to the same. Further reproduced the statement recorded from the Eurekha Builders and they have stated that they have not received any amount in cash from Mr. K.P.Nanjundi or any of his firms. Further the learned Assessing Officer reproduced the submission of the appellant as follows: 4. With regard to amount payable to M/s. Eurekha Builders, the said amount of Rs. 1.5 Crores has not been paid and the amount payable has been reflected under unsecured loans in the financial statement as at 31.03.2012 and the same continues to be shown payable. The amount payable to M/s. Eurekha Builders is under litigation. M/s. Eurekha Builders had sent a legal notice towards recovery of the said amount. In reply to the notice, the company had written that it need not pay anything to them and said that the amount was paid in cash which was not accepted by M/s. Eurekha Builders. The statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to them since the appellant has paid. in cash. The seized material at page No.21 being cash entry of Rs. 50,00,000/- being paid to M/s. Eurekha Builders is only to rebut the amount payable by the appellant. In fact the appellant has not made any cash payment to M/s. Eurekha Builders. xii) The learned Assessing officer without any finding in the assessment order simply made addition of Rs. 50,00,000/-by observing that based on the above discussion a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- is added back as unexplained cash to the total income returned by the assessee . xiii) The learned Assessing officer has not given any show cause notice before making the addition and the addition made is in violation of principles of natural justice. xiv) The addition made by the learned Assessing officer is not in accordance with law. xv) The learned Assessing Officer accepted the books of accounts of the appellant and it was subject to audit under section 44AB of the Act. xvi) The return of income for the impugned assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 30.09.2011 showing the amount payable to M/s. Eurekha Builders a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- for the year ended 31.03.2011. Copy of the brea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Builders and the amount paid by it later was repayment of the same. 6. On this aspect, he has also drawn our attention to the letter written by the said M/s. Eureka Builders to the assessee wherein the statement of amount due along with interest as on 30.09.2011 is reflecting the principle amount of the impugned amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs and interest from 16.06.2010 to 30.09.2011 is Rs. 11,77,500/- is claimed to have been payable; the said letter is annexed to page 28 of the paper book filed before us. In the event, the amount is not paid, the appellant would be facing dire consequences, the lender company may approach the court for recovery of the said amount as also mentioned in the said letter. The said fact of non-payment of amount has also been reiterated by the said M/s. Eureka Builders by way of legal notice dated 23.02.2012 issued to the appellant company, appearing at page 33 of the paper book filed before us. Under this premises, it is the ultimate submission made by the Ld.AR that since M/s. Eureka Builders has already denied the receipt of such cash deposit made by the appellant, the addition made contrary to the fact is, thus, liable to be deleted. 7. On the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
