TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . JAIN, AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, JJ. Assessee by: Ms. Kavita Batra, A.R. Department by: Sh. Prithi Lal, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, New Delhi dated 20.9.2010 pertaining to assessment year 2006-07. 2. The grounds raised read as under:- i) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 96,65,438/- on account unexplained cash credits as, in contravention of the provisions of Rule 46A reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the Assessing Officer to consider the evidence provided by the assessee as the appellate stage. Reliance is placed on the decision of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (P) Ltd., against which interest of Rs. 4295/- was paid. In support of its contention it filed confirmatory letter from the aforesaid two parties, copy of acknowledgement of their returns, copy of bank statements of the above parties and also the copy of a/c of the assessee. Considering the above the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) observed that due to reasonable cause, assessee could not furnish the evidence before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) forwarded the new evidence to the Assessing Officer for his remand report. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) further reproduced the following portion of the remand report. As per assessment order, it was noted that the main addition was made on a/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment proceedings. I find that these loans of Rs. 94,50,000/- and Rs. 10 lacs were taken from M/s Pilot Consultants Ltd. and M/s Sanjeevani Estates (P) Ltd. respectively through banking channels against which the interests were paid and TDS were also made. The confirmatory letters alongwith copy of acknowledgement of ITR and copy of bank account of the creditors and also of the appellant have been filed. Thus these evidences prove the genuineness of the loan taken from the aforesaid creditors. Hence, the provision of 68 of the I.T. Act does not apply in this case. Hence, the provision of 69 of the I.T. Act does not apply in this case, thus the additions of Rs. 96,65,438/- as made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. The Assessing Officer i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
