9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition at Rs. 45,000). 3. The facts of the case are that assessee raised an aggregate loans of Rs. 52,500 from the undermentioned persons on the date mentioned thereagainst. These loans were repaid on the dates mentioned below: -------------------------------------------------------------- S.No. Name Amount Date of receipt Date of Rs. payment -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. G. Venkateswara Reddy 8,000 7-1-1989 30-1-1989 2. A. Prasada Reddy 8,000 7-1-1989 30-1-1989 3. K. Subba Reddy 10,000 17-8-1988 27-1-1989 4. S. Nagireddy 10,000 17-8-1988 9-9-1988 7,000 6-1-1989 30-1-1989 5. L. Sambi Reddy 9,500 18-6-1988 31-8-1988 ------ 52,500 ------ Since there was an advance of Rs. 7,000 by Sri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduce small sum of Rs. 45,500 out of its own income and such small loans, therefore, should not have been doubted by the AO in the first instance. Alternatively, he pleaded that the peak credit results into Rs. 33,000 and if at all addition was to be made, it could not exceed Rs. 30,000. He made prayer for the deletion of the addition of Rs. 45,500 in the ultimate argument. 5. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative relied upon the reasonings given by the authorities below in their respective orders and prayed for the confirmation of the addition. In reply, the learned counsel for the assessee justified the non-charging of interest by the creditors on their loans as the period involved was not significant and, therefore, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rove that whether the alleged creditors were having any agricultural land and if they have, whether the quantum of land holding was enough to enable them to save adequate money with them. It has been recorded by the AO in the assessment order that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee to prove the cash credits. It is not the case of the assessee, at any stage, that opportunity of hearing and to prove the cash credit was not adequate. The case of the assessee is that, by filing confirmatory letters, it has discharged its primary onus cast on it, and if at all revenue wanted to verify those loans, it would have conducted necessary enquiries. We are not satisfied with the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
