9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ptions. We proceed to deal with the case on merits. 3. The assessee-firm trades in textile items. The sole question in the present case is that of aforesaid addition to Rs. 11,90,000/- as unexplained cash credit. The assessee obtained these loans from Shri Kailash Chandra Meena in individual capacity as well as that as an HUF to the extent of Rs. 7,90,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/-; respectively. The Assessing Officer sought to verify identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of these loan instances. He issued a section 131 notice to the abovesaid creditor. The said person verified to have advanced loan to the assessee in individual as well as HUF capacity. His statement is evident from 3 to 5 of the assessment order dated 24.12.2008. The Assessing Officer inter alia noticed that there were certain chinks in the abovesaid deposition regarding the sale purchase of the sarees and other business items, acquisition of the cash amount in question, source of the opening balance and also the fact that his address was same as that of the assessee. He also found that bank account of the said creditor was introduced by Shri Pradeep Agarwal; manager and son of the assessee firm's partner Shri Ram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 16,051 and interest income of Rs. 11,850. In the hands the HUF, the business income was shown at Rs. 80,869 and interest income at Rs. 12,469. With these entries and with the returns of income, it was presumed by the Assessee, as also Shri Kailashchandra Meena, that all the loose ends had got tied up, even though no supporting document was furnished along with the returns of income, even though it was the first time that such returns were field by Shri Kailashchandra Meena and his HUF. 6.2 . However, in course of the assessment proceedings, which commenced much later, when Shri Kailashchandra Meena was summoned u/s.131 of the IT Act and his statement recorded on 05-12- 2008, he had perhaps forgotten what had been shown in the returns of income; in fact he could not be expected to remember the entries, since he may not have himself filed the returns of income. Therefore, when closely questioned by the Assessing Officer he gave certain answers which were in total contradiction to what had been stated/shown in the returns of income. The questions and answers as reproduced by the AO in para 4.1, pages 3-5 of the assessment order are very significant. He claimed to have been do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposited in the two bank accounts were also issued by Shri Pradeep Agarwal, who was the son of one of the partners and, also the manager of the firm. There is no relationship established between Shri Meena and Shri Agarwal for Shri Meena to entrust him with the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. It is also not explained why Shri Agarwal gave him the cheques which he deposited in the bank accounts. The cheques were issued by Shri Agarwal from his account no. 2597 in his capacity as the prop, of M/s Manisha Textiles. He had issued two cheques of Rs. 4 lakhs each to the individual and to the HUF, and both the cheques were deposited in the respective bank account on 27-03- 2006 and 28-03-2006. 6.5 Also of interest is the fact that Shri Kailashchandra Meena had given his address in both the returns of income as 151, Ajanta Shopping Centre, Ring Road, Surat, which is the address of the Assessee. More significantly, what was stated by Shri Meena in his statement recorded on oath was in complete contradiction to what had been shown in the returns of income. When this was pointed out to him, he clearly stated that what was stated in the returns of income were not correct. This is evident from the answe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... speak for themselves and the same have been discussed in details and reiterated in the aforesaid paragraphs. The facts of the case clearly establish and confirm the AO's finding that neither Shri Meena nor his HUF had the requisite creditworthiness to give loans totalling Rs. 11,90,000 to the Assessee. The claim of the Assessee was absolutely bogus. The explanation sought to be furnished was unsubstantiated and hence, was false and .not bonafide. The provisions of section 68 was therefore, clearly attracted. The addition of the sum of Rs. 11,90,000 as unexplained cash credits is therefore, confirmed." Therefore, the assessee is in appeal. 5. We have heard the Revenue. The case file comprising of assessment order, lower appellate order as well as assessee's written submission along with the abovestated documents stands perused. There is no dispute that the amount in question has been credited in the assessee's bank account through cheque transfers. There is also no issue about identity of the creditors i.e. Shri Kailash Chandra Meena (Individual and HUF). The assessee's books of accounts with regard to these two creditors are also placed on record. All these payments are dul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
