Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1659 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit u/s.68 - Unsecured loan received - HELD THAT:- Source of deposit of cash by the loan creditor Shri Simachal Panda could not be satisfactorily explained by the assessee either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld CIT(A) or even before me. Thus, the creditworthiness of the loan creditor Sri Simachal Panda could not be proved. Hence, find no good reason to interfere with the order of the ld CIT(A) and, therefore, this part of ground of appeal is dismissed. Laon from Late Banamali Besoyee, it is observed from the bank statement of United Bank of India, B.D.Pur placed at page 5 of PB that ₹ 4 lakh was advanced out of agricultural loan obtained from UBI and thus, the creditworthiness of the loan creditor is proved for advancing the loan of ₹ 4 lakh to the assessee. Hence set aside the orders of lower authorities on this issue and delete the addition - Ground No.1 of the appeal is partly allowed. Addition u/s.68 for deposit of cash and cheque in the bank - assessee failed to explain the source of the same - HELD THAT:- Source of the deposit also could not be explained before the ld CIT(A). Before us A.R. submitted that the deposit of ₹ 8 lakhs in the bank was the sale proceeds from the business of the assessee of fruits and bricks. However, he could not place any evidence on record to substantiate his claim. Therefore, the argument of the ld A.R. of the assessee that entire ₹ 8 lakhs cannot be treated as income of the assessee but the income embedded of such receipts from the business of fruits and bricks of the assessee of ₹ 8 lakhs could only be treated as income of the assessee, cannot be accepted Assessee could not produce the creditors before the Assessing Officer for examination - action taken by the Assessing Officer to secure the appearance of the creditors before him. In our considered view, in the above circumstances, CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions action taken by the Assessing Officer to secure the appearance of the creditors before him. In my considered view, in the above circumstances, the ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions Under the Income tax Act, the power has been conferred on the Assessing Officer to secure the presence of a person and no power has been conferred upon the assessee by exercise of which he can compel the creditors to appear before the Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|