Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (8) TMI 199 - Income Tax
Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Disallowance of interest being non-genuine - main contention before us advanced by the ld. AR is about nongranting opportunity of cross-examination of Mr. Rangnath Dattatraya Gadekar - HELD THAT:- As in the present case we held the loan itself is not genuine as the loan creditor himself stated in the cross-examination and through affidavit he did not give any loan to assessee - we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in holding that there is no loan advanced by Mr. Rangnath Dattatraya Gadekar to assessee and consequently, disallowance of interest is not justified. We concur with the findings of CIT(A) in toto.
Addition on account of claim of excess payment - HELD THAT:- We find the cross-examination which was reproduced by the CIT(A) of the impugned order and on perusal of the cross-examination of the above said three persons, we note that they clearly stated that they wanted to receive entire amount of money which was deposited in their account against the acquisition of their land. They also stated they did not receive any amount from the assessee as claimed by him except Rs.20 lakhs, Rs.14 lakhs and Rs.20 lakhs, respectively. On perusal of the impugned order and also written submissions as filed by the ld. AR vide letter dated 30-05-2022 before us, we note that admittedly there is no proof to show that the assessee paid Rs.92,00,000/- except, payment to the above said three persons. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in confirming addition.
Addition on account of payable to three parties - addition made as liability is not crystallized - HELD THAT:- There is no proof to show that the liability is crystallized before us, therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.