9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee for the years 2000-01. The Revenue carried search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 22.9.2005 at the residential premises of the Director/partners and also the business premises of the concerns belonging to the Vijay Group. Consequent thereto, the present assessment was completed u/s 153A of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee did not file balance-sheet along with the return of income filed u/s 139(1) and also under section 153A of the Act. On being called by the AO, the assessee filed the balance sheet wherein unsecured loans was shown to the tune of Rs. 1,37,36,115/- and hence the AO called for the details relating thereto. Since the details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appear before him. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has furnished confirmation letters containing the address of the creditor along with PAN and he has requested the parties to appear before the AO. However, they have failed to appear before the AO despite the request made by assessee. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has discharged these loans in the subsequent years through account payee cheques. Since the matter was very old and since the assessee had already repaid the loan, they did not cooperate with the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee has otherwise discharged the initial burden placed upon him by furnishing necessary evidences. Since the assessee could not enforce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the creditors and also their respective PAN. Thus, we notice that the creditors having received back the loans from the assessee did not mind to co-operate with the assessee by way of appearing before the AO, since the transactions were 10 years old. We also notice that the AO also did not enforce the attendance of these creditors by issuing summons to them and he did not verify their income tax returns also, even though the assessee has filed necessary details. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that tax authorities could not draw adverse inference in respect of inability of the assessee to produce the creditors. A careful perusal of the provisions of sec. 68 would show that the addition on account of unproved cash credit is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the amount of Rs. 21,36,766/-, the AO assessed the balance amount of Rs. 18,36,766/- as income of the assessee towards unexplained bank deposits. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee gave certain explanations and also claimed that most of the deposits are recorded in the books of account. The ld. CIT(A) gave definite finding that the deposits to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs stands explained and accordingly directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 15 lakhs. The assessee explained that a sum of Rs. 9,39,935/- was earned by him as commission income. It appears that the assessee has explained the sources of balance amount of deposits as his commission income. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) restored the matter to the file of the AO with a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
