TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee and the assessee claimed that loan amount was received through banking channel. AO has not made any independent investigation nor issued any show cause notice or summons to the creditor to bring other adverse material against the assessee. It is also fact that the assessee could not prove his contention about the unsecured loan. However, we find merit in the submission of Ld. AR of the assessee that the explanation offered by assessee has not been disproved by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of National Textiles [ 2000 (10) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Jalaram Oil Mills [ 2001 (6) TMI 15 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that where the circumstances do not lead to the reasonable a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty imposed by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal s) may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to ad, alter or delete any grounds(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that scrutiny assessment for assessment year (AY) 2013-14 was completed under section 143(3) on 19.03.2016. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made addition of Rs.6,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer before making addition issued show cause notice to prove the genuineness of unsecured loan of Rs. 6.00 lakhs shown by the assessee and to furnish documentary evidence, to substantiate the identity and capacity of creditor and genui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission, assessee submitted that he availed unsecured loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from Shri Kishorbhai G Savani who is an agriculturist, Shri Kishorbhai G Savani is not maintaining his books of account and is not required to file return of income as his income below tax limit. During assessment, the assessee made best efforts to collect copy of bank statement and copy of sales bill of creditors / Shri Kishorbhai G Savani. The assessee received loan through account payee cheque. The assessee furnished the address of party / creditor and copy of pass-book. The assessee also furnished PAN card and claimed that assessee proved the identity and genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor. The assessee also contended that he had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment the assessee furnished copy of bank statement, copy of sales bills of creditor / Shri Kishorbhai G Savani for assessment year 2016-17. The assessee also filed copy of land record in the form of Extract 7/12. The assessee clearly proved the identity and source of income of creditor/Shri Kishorbhai G Savani. The Assessing Officer held that assessee was required to furnish the details relating to assessment year 2013-14 but assessee could not file such details as it was beyond the control of assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee submits that Assessing Officer has not disproved the contention of assessee about the identity and creditworthiness of creditor. The loan was availed by assessee for a bona fide need. Thus, the assessee also proved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 ITR 243 (All). 5. In alternative submission, Ld. AR of the assessee submits that in the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer has not struck out the inappropriate portion, wherein the penalty is levied on furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has not specific charge of penalty is not sustainable. To support his contention, Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nayan C. Shah Vs. ITO 386 ITR 304 (Guj). 6. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue submits that during the assessment, assessee failed to substantiate his genuineness of loan of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee noted above. The Assessing Officer has noted that assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of creditor and made addition under section 68 by treating the unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit. We find that no appeal in quantum assessment was filed by assessee. Thus, the addition made in the quantum assessment attained finality. We are of the conscious of the fact that penalty proceedings are separate and independent proceedings though the observation on the addition in the quantum assessment may have bearing in the penalty proceedings. However, such observation are not conclusive. We find that the identity of creditor including PAN and details of agricultural procedure was filed by the assessee and the assessee claimed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
