9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ineness of the transactions - CIT(A)/NFAC deleted the part addition and confirmed balance of addition in respect of unsecured loan obtained from Mr. Janardhan Anant Patil by holding that the appellant only filed PAN and bank statement of the said lender but not submitted any evidence as to the creditworthiness of the lender - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the relevant material on record, bank statement of Mr. Janardhan Anant Patil, we are of the considered opinion that it can be found out whether there are any deposits in his account before giving loan to the assessee. It can also be found out whether said person has given the unsecured loans out of the money standing to his credit. From the reading of CIT(A)/NFAC s order, it would show that the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC swayed away by the remand report of the AO - It is also clear that the CIT(A)/NFAC has passed the order without any independent application of mind. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the matter requires remission to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC. Unexplained cash credit u/s. 69A - Requirement of passing a reasoned order by an authority whether administrative, quasi judicial or judicial - CIT(A)/NFAC dele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs. 3,68,76,096/- with HDFC Bank Ltd. and also received unsecured loans of Rs. 54,00,000/-, made a provision of expenses of Rs. 15,92,941/-. On noticing the above, the Assessing Officer called upon the appellant to substantiate the source of cash deposit as well as prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the unsecured loans/lenders and also provision for expenditure vide notices issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The appellant has failed to comply the said notices. Therefore, the Assessing Officer drew adverse inference and proceeded to make ex parte assessment after disallowing the above items as well as 20% of the expenditure claim of Rs. 33,76,425/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order deleted the addition of Rs. 4.00 lakh in respect of unsecured loans of Rs. 54,00,000/-, while confirming the balance addition of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The CIT(A)/NFAC directed the Assessing Officer to allow 10% of the expenses disallowed out of the total expenditure of Rs. 33,76,425/- against 20% made by the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the ad-hoc disallowance of expense of Rs. 3,23,704/- (20% of Rs. 16,18,250/-). 7. The assessee vide Ground of appeal No.1 challenges the addition on account of provision for expenditure of Rs. 83,000/- as confirmed by CIT(A)/NFAC. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had disallowed provision for expenses of Rs. 15,92,941/- on failure of the assessee to furnish full particulars of provision for expenditure as well as substantiate the same. However, on appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, the NFAC confirmed the addition of Rs. 83,000/- only and balance was deleted. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us. 8. We heard the ld. DR and perused the assessment order as well as the order of CIT(A)/NFAC. We find that the CIT(A)/NFAC merely extracted the submissions made by the assessee by giving bald finding, simply confirmed the addition only to the extent of Rs. 83,000/- without giving any cogent reason. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the matter is required to be sent back to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to pass a reasoned order after adverting to the written submissions of the assessee as well as the evidence filed duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit u/s. 69A, the ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the remand report without exercising his coterminous powers u/s. 250(4) of the Act. 3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, with regard to the addition of Rs. 3,68,76,096/- towards unexplained cash credit u/s. 69A, the ld. CIT(A) erred in non-appreciation of the correct facts. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, with regard to the addition of Rs. 3,68,76,096/- towards unexplained cash credit u/s. 69A, the ld. CIT(A) erred in non-appreciation of the fact that the contention of the assessee as per the additional evidences furnished, wherein it is categorically submitted by the assessee that the cash withdrawals from assessee s other banks were Rs. 1,91,33,353/- which were majorly from Union Bank of India (Rs. 6,60,000/-) and RDCC Cash Credit Account No. 37545 (Rs. 1,84,73,353/-) is not correct. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, with regard to the addition of Rs. 3,68,76,096/- towards unexplained cash credit u/s. 69A, the ld. CIT(A) erred in non-appreciation of the fact that verification of sources of cash deposits in HDFC Bank Ltd. has not been carried out properly in the remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
