9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide the impugned order dated 24.06.2024, without considering the extensive submission/ documents placed on by the appellant and by merely reiterating the allegations made by the assessing officer. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal without allowing any opportunity of hearing to the appellant in gross violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000 made by the assessing officer under section 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan obtained by the appellant from his wife, Ms. Freyan Jamshed Desai (lender), alleging that source of credit is not explained by the appellant. 2.1 That the CIT(A)/ AO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that contemporaneous evidence has been placed on record by the appellant to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lender (wife) and genuineness of transaction, ousting applicability of section 68 of the Act. 2.2 That the CIT(A)/ AO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that identical transactions of receipt of loan by the appellant from his wife have been accepted in the hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dual and founder of director of Divitas Capital Private Limited submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) while disposing his appeal mechanically confirmed all the additions / disallowances in question. 5. Whereas per Contra, The Ld. DR heavily relied upon the orders of the both authorities below. 6. Heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 7. Regarding Ground no. 2, 2.1 and 2.2., the Ld. AR expressed grievance that the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, which was made by the Ld. AO under Section 68 of the Act, on account of unsecured loan obtained by the assessee / appellant from his wife Freyan Jamshed Desai by alleging that source of credit is not explained by him and the Ld. CIT(A) while disposing the appeal, not appreciated contemporaneous evidence which was placed on record by the assessee / appellant to prove the identity and creditworthiness of lenders (wife) and genuineness of transaction and also not appreciated the identical transaction of receipt of loan by the assessee / appellant from his wife which have been accepted in the hand of the assessee /appellant in preceding assessment years after scrutiny assessments. The Ld. AR fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant case, the Ld. AR submitted that no addition should have been made in provision of section 68 of the Act, since the appellant had, during the course of proceedings before the lower authorities, discharged the primary onus by placing on record various contemporaneous and unrebutted documentary evidences in support of the unsecured loan obntained form his wife, which is mentioned as under: a. Form 3CD of the appellant which clearly discloses the loan transaction, placed at page no. 13-14 on PB. b. ITR of the applicant and the lender, which is well placed on page 42 of the PB c. Ledger account of the assessee / appellant in the books of Mrs. Freyan Jamshed Desai alongwith confirmation wherein all the transaction stands recorded which explicitly shows that the appellant has in fact repaid outstanding loan to the extent of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- during this year while was only received Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from here wife and it is sufficient to prove the source of fund placed at page 40-49 of the PB d. Bank account statement of both the lender and the appellant, which is clearly substantiating the loan entries and well placed at page no. 35-39 of the PB. e. The receipt of loan has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Standard Chartered Bank (A/c No.52610099244) of Mrs. Freyan Jamshed Desai as on 01.04.2017 was Rs. 1,22,88,257 which was even more than the amount of loan advanced during the year under consideration. 8. Regarding submissions advanced as hereinbefore, the Ld. CIT(A) mechanically disposed of and dismissed the appeal without even mentioning the submissions of assessee / appellant and it is strange to note that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal, simply reproduced the order passed by the Ld. AO whereas the Ld. CIT(A) was supposed to decide the appeal of assessee on its merits in accordance with law. 9. On the basis of foregoing factual position and material placed on record, we find materials substance in the submissions of assessee / appellant by which is crystal clear that the identity of the lender, genuineness of the Transaction and creditworthiness of wife of assessee / appellant is beyond question and by furnishing documentary evidences, the assessee appellant succeeded to discharge primary onus to prove or establish the same and there is nothing on record to controvert which has to bring the necessarily on record by the Revenue as per law, and even the Ld. AO /CIT(A) no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of proof regarding payment of actual rent is unwarranted more so when the eligibility to claim HRA exemption is not disputed by the Revenue. It is also submitted that strangely the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal, ignored the back account statement submitted before him and dismissed the plea by stating that in the absence of actual rent paid by the assessee the submissions of him not accepted and above all it is highly relevant that the case of the assessee / appellant for the subsequent assessment years i.e. 2018-19 was also selected for scrutiny assessment wherein identical issue relating to exemption of HRA was examined in detail and thereafter the assessing officer fully allowed the claim to appellant without any deviation / disallowance. We find substance in submissions which is supported with relevant material on record and hence this ground of appeal is allowed. 12. Ground no. 5 is general in nature and need not be adjudicated. 13. In conclusion, we are of the considered opinion that there is a material substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee / appellant and additions made by the Ld. AO which is upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), deserve to be deleted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
