TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, the assessee has called into question correctness of CIT(A)'s order dated 15th March, 2011, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds: "1. On the facts and consideration of the case in law in the first instance, the ld ITO disallowed Rs.62,19,593 on account of non receipt of confirmation of unsecured loans raised by us for our business. The addition was made based on certain presumptions and assumptions but without processing, the addition as described under the section 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and consideration of the case in law, the ld CIT(A) increased the quantum of non receipt of confirmation of unsecured loans from Rs.62,19,593 to Rs.1,12,77,050 which is resulted in enhancement of the addition by Rs.50,57,457. 3. On the facts and consideration of the case in law, the Ld AO has not provided adequate time for getting confirmation of loan from more than 60 lenders from whom the assessee has borrowed funds from those lenders for carrying business activities. In view of the large number of lenders who are instrumental in carrying out the business of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d every loan was obtained by cheque and that the delay in obtaining the balance confirmation was due to the factors beyond assessee's control. In the proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee filed three different schedules of the loans - i) in respect of cases where there was opening balance as also transactions during the year and closing balance; 2) in respect of cases, in which there was only opening balance and no transaction during the year and 3) in respect of the cases in which loans were squared up during the relevant previous year. The assessee also filed confirmation letters in respect of parties whose names are appearing in schedule-1 and Schedule-II. All the details filed by the assessee were remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for his comments and the AO also filed Remand Report in respect of the case. So far as the cases in which no amounts were received in the relevant previous year and the balance reflected only the opening balance, the CIT(A) accepted the genuineness of these cases and, accordingly, assessee's explanation was accepted. In respect of Schedule, where the assessee, vis the opening balance and also the transaction took place during the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer that the loans reflected by the appellant was Rs.4,00,000/- whereas Girish Singhal confirmed it at Rs.2,00,000/- the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- remains unexplained and hence same Is sustained back u/s.68. (vi) As regards Amit V. Aggarwal no details have been furnished by the appellant though stated in the reply and hence amount of Rs.1,00,000/- Is sustained u/s.68 reflected in the name of Amit V.Aggarwal. vii) Coming to Kewal Krishna Gupta appellant has furnished copy of return filed. It is seen that income from other source at Rs.3,26586/- is shown however same is not supported by any TDS or ledger account confirmation and hence it cannot be said that Shri Kewal Krishna Gupta has creditworthy to advance this loan of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the appellant. The Assessing Officer in his remand report has already stated that the details furnished by Shri Kewal Krishna Gupta have been verified and it is found that the loan has not even given by cheque. There is no balance sheet maintained by Shri Kewal Krishna Gupta and in view of this the Assessing Officer concluding that the loans appearing in the name of Kewal Krishna Gupta, individual for Rs.3,00,000/- and Kewal Kris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re sustained asunder: Uma Rani Gupta Rs.5,00,000 Meghru Sahhsrwai Rs.1,70.000 Glirish Singhal (HUF) Rs.2,00,000 Rakhi Aggarwal Rs. 70,000 Kewal Krishna Gupta(HUF) Rs,1,00,000 Kewal Krishna Gupta Rs.3,00,000 Shruti Aggarwal Rs.20O000 Sunita Aggarwal Rs. 50,000 Varsha Aggarwal Rs.4O0,000 Vinkumar M.Agganval - Rs. 50,000 Vinod M Aggarwal - Rs.3,00000 Kamal Aggarwal (HUF) - Rs.1,00,000 Vinay K.Aggarwal - Rs, 100000 Agganval Steel Enterprises - Rs.1,10000 Total; Rs.26,50,000/- Schedule III Mr.Ashok Gornani Rs.15,00,000/- M/s.C.K.Huilders Developers Rs.S,00,000/- Mr.Lachhmidhar Kanshiram Rs.45,2?,050/- Mr. Manav R. Gupta Rs1,00,000/- Mr.Sunny Maghriani Rs.20,00,000/- Total Rs.86,,27,050 Grand Total Rs.1,12,77,050" 3. So far as the amounts in third list were concerned, i.e. with respect to items of loans which were squared up durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siders it appropriate to enhance the assessment. 6. We have also noticed that the assessee has now filed additional evidences by way of confirmations and other supporting material to demonstrate bonafides of the creditors. We have also taken note of assessee's plea that as he did not have proper legal assistance and that due to factors beyond his control, he could not obtain these evidences earlier. In our consideration view, the technicalities of assessee's failure to have produced all these materials should not come in the way of substantive justice, and, now that the matter is going back to CIT(A) anyway, all these evidences should be examined and considered on merits. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to also direct the CIT(A) to take all into account such additional evidences, as the assessee may produce even at this stage, and decide the matter on the merits of these evidences and all other factors. Accordingly, we direct the CIT(A) to decide the matter denovo in the light of our above observations. 7. For the reasons set out above, and in the light of directions as above, we hereby remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication denovo. As we are remit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
