TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- and sometimes even ₹ 1 lac. It means that there was regular cash flow in the bank account from which the loan of ₹ 2,50,000/- was given to the assessee i.e. her nephew. In view of the above, it is of the view that Shashi Devi Poddar was having sufficient basis and funds to give loan of ₹ 2,50,000/- to the assessee. Therefore, no reason to doubt the same. Accordingly, this is accepted as genuine and delete the addition.- Decided against revenue. Cash credit received from Shri Kanhaiya Lal Poddar - Held that:- This is a merely small amount of ₹ 49,000/- advanced out of current year’s income. The current year’s income of the loan creditor is about ₹ 1,10,250/-, which is sufficient to meet this loan amount. Even otherwise, the loan was advanced on 23.12.2006 almost at the end of the year. Presuming that this amount was available with the loan creditor and amount was given by way of demand draft, no reason to doubt the same. Accordingly, this is accepted as genuine and delete the same.- Decided against revenue. Addition on low household withdrawal - Held that:- Assessee filed the details of other family members’ withdrawals like assessee’s wife Smt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e nature and sources of loans in the instant case were conclusively proved beyond any reasonable doubt and the purported finding of disbelieving their genuinity on extraneous issues not germane to the subject of dispute is completely unfounded, unjustified and untenable in law. 3. FOR THAT on a proper conspectus of material on record, preponderance of probabilities and circumstances attending, the identities of the loan creditors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions being proved by the appellant, the purported finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol upholding the impugned addition of ₹ 5,99,000/- made by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Asansol on the specious allegation of unproved Cash credit by rejecting such immaculate evidence adduced on record is wholly illegal, illegitimate and infirm in law. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a proprietor of a firm under the name and style of M/s. Relations , which deals in distributorship business of Reliance Mobile Cards. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has taken unsecured loans from Smt. Rinku Poddar amounting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nconsistencies in the statement like she denied giving any loan to Shri Manoj Kumar Poddar, the assessee and moreover, she admitted that there is no big amount deposited in her account. In view of these inconsistencies and the fact that this amount of ₹ 300000/- was deposited on the very same date and issued cheque to assessee immediately for which there was no source to explain this credit entry, hence , the AO treated this amount as unexplained because the source of this deposit was not proved. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the action of AO by holding that in view of the evidence in hand, the creditworthiness and genuineness is not proved. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 5. I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before me, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from other evidence stated that this amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- is a deposit out of cash flow statement. When this was pointed out to him, he stated that he is ready to file the cash flow statement. I have gone through the entire paper book consists of pages 1 to 78 and noticed that the only evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce Smt. Shashi Devi Poddar and she was finally produced before the AO on 09.12.2009 and statement was recorded. There were certain inconsistencies in the statement like she stated this transaction is not in my knowledge. It may be possible that my husband had deposited money in my account on that date. But that money is not mine . In view of these inconsistencies, the AO treated this amount as unexplained because the source of this deposit was not proved. 8. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the action of AO by holding that in view of the evidence in hand the creditworthiness and genuineness is not proved. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 9. I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before me, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from other evidence stated that this amount of ₹ 2,50,000/- is a deposit out of cash in hand with Shashi Devi Poddar. I have gone through the entire paper book consisting of pages 1 to 78 and noticed that assessee has produced before the AO various documents like Income Tax Returns for AY 2005-06 to 2007-08 along with computation of income, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n creditor is about ₹ 1,10,250/-, which is sufficient to meet this loan amount. Even otherwise, the loan was advanced on 23.12.2006 almost at the end of the year. Presuming that this amount was available with the loan creditor and amount was given by way of demand draft, I have no reason to doubt the same. Accordingly, this is accepted as genuine and I delete the same. 12. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the amount as low household withdrawal amounting to ₹ 30,000/-. 13. Briefly stated facts are that the AO estimated the drawing of the family at ₹ 5,000/- per month and he estimated the personal expenses as of the family at ₹ 60,000/- by giving rebate of ₹ 30,000/- as declared by assessee as household withdrawals. He treated the balance ₹ 30,000/- as income from other sources. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the action of AO without giving any finding on facts. Aggrieved, assessee came in second appeal before Tribunal. 14. I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before me assessee filed the details of oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
