9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order as well as in remand report. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent." 3. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts by making addition on account of non-submission of PAN No. by the appellant amounting to Rs. 2,95,71,691/-. The appellant had submitted complete details of PAN nos. and in some major cases appellant had also submitted return of income of those persona from whom PAN nos. were not available. It be so held the addition of Rs. 2,95,71,691/- be deleted. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts by making addition of Rs. 31,02,959/- on account of non-clearance of cross examination of other parties by the Ld. AO u/s 12 of the Act. It be so held the addition of Rs. 31,02,959/- be deleted. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmations and misused the documents in respect of these creditors. Accordingly, in light of these observations, the assessing Officer observed that except the loan amount of Rs. 12,60,417/- which was accepted by the creditor in response to notice under section 133 (6) of the Act, for the rest of the unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 14,81,68,666/- credited in the books of accounts of the assessee had failed to pass the test of genuineness and creditworthiness within the meaning of section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessing officer added a sum of Rs. 14,81,68,666/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. 5. In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), he gave substantial relief to the assessee and deleted the additions of Rs. 11,54,94,016/-. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessing officer had notices issued to 9 parties which were returned unserved, but the assessment order is silent about the status of notices issued to balance creditors under section 133 (6) of the Act. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that credits have been received in the bank accounts of the assessee through normal banking channels, and once the assessee has furnished necessary information like PAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeding into the matter, it would be useful to examine in detail the evidence which was placed before the tax authorities in support of the aforesaid transaction and which have also been placed before us for our consideration, to ascertain whether Ld. CIT(Appeals) has appropriately granted relief to the assessee on this matter. We shall first analyse the details submitted as "Annexure-B" giving details of Rs. 2,90,91,057/- deleted by Ld. CIT(Appeals). With respect to Sirsa Enterprises (Rs. 30,00,000/-), we observe that the assessee has only provided a copy of PAN, ledger confirmation and ITR, but it is seen that the assessee has filed a return of Rs. 2.64 lakhs and claimed the refund of taxes. From the facts placed on record, we see no reason as to on what basis Ld. CIT(Appeals) has held that the creditworthiness of party has been proved and accordingly, in our view there is no basis for giving relief to the assessee. Similarly, for Suman trading Company (Rs. 25 lakhs), only ledger confirmation has been provided and ITR of one Shashi Sharma has been submitted showing income of Rs. 8.62 lakhs, which again does not prove the identity and creditworthiness of the said party. With respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te facts of the case need to be analysed. In respect of the parties, in our considered view, the assessee has not been able to show the creditworthiness of the parties and once it is seen that the assessee has taken substantial amounts of loan from these parties, the primary onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the parties. Therefore, for these parties in our considered view, Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in facts and in law in allowing relief to the assessee. 10. Now we shall proceed to analyse the details of parties amounting to loan of Rs. 7,36,02,959/- deleted by Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the details of which have been furnished before us as Annexure "C". With respect to M. K. Infrastructure (Rs. 1 crore), the assessee has only submitted those details before Ld. CIT(Appeals) which had been earlier submitted before the assessing officer. As noted by the assessing officer, the above party had shown a meagre income of 4.5 lakhs and hence the creditworthiness of the said party had not been proved by the assessee. We observe that the assessee has not submitted any additional details before Ld. CIT(Appeals) in support of the creditworthines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eness of the transaction, in our considered view. In other cases, where the assessee has responded to notice issued under section 133 (6) of the Act or has furnished ITR declaring a reasonable amount of income or furnished further evidences of genuineness of transactions, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly allowed relief to the assessee. 11. In the result, in light of the above observations, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed. 12. Now we shall take up the assessee's appeal, in respect of amounts confirmed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order. With respect to a sum of Rs. 11.31 lakhs, in respect of which the addition has been confirmed on the ground that the assessee has not been able to reconcile this amount, the counsel for the assessee submitted that this amount may be added and the assessee shall not be pressing addition with respect to this ground and accordingly, this amount is hereby confirmed. With respect to addition of Rs. 31.02 lakhs for Alpaben Shah and Prakash Parmar, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) wherein he has held that looking into the assessee's set of facts, the assessee has not been able to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
