TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by: Shri. Amit Nigam, D.R. Respondent by: None ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) on a solitary ground that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called in short the Act ). 2. This appeal came up for hearing on 16.7.2014, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite valid service of notice of hearing. We, therefore, had no option but to hear the appeal in the absence of the assessee. We have also examined the grounds of appeal and we find that the appeal can be adjudicated on merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances of the case and I have considered the findings of the Assessing Officer and the written submissions of the appellant. As per the facts emerging from the assessment order, the appellant raised unsecured loans of ₹ 27,99,139/- from 27 persons. Out of this, an amount of ₹ 17,01,759/- concerned Shri Hari Har Singh, the Karta of the HUF-appellant. The AO made an addition of the balance of ₹ 10,97,380/- on the basis of examination of 3 accounts of Shri Mohd. Azam, Shri O.P Singh and Smt. Reema Rastogi. In the case of Shanker Industries vs. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal), it was held that in order to discharge the onus under section 68 to show that the cash credits do not present the Income, the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... giving the loan accepts the same in his confirmation. In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari Vs CIT another 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati), the Hon'ble Court laid down as under- A person may have funds from any source and an assessee, on such information received, may take a loan from such a person. It is not the business of the assessee to find out ether the source or sources from which the creditor had agreed to advance the amounts were genuine or not. If a creditors has, by any undisclosed source, a particular amount of money in the bank, there is no limitation under the law on the part of the assessee to obtain such amount of money or part thereof from the creditor, by way of cheque in the form of loan and in such a case, if the creditor f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the interest paid / credited to the creditors addition not justified. B. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat) Appeal ( High Court) - substantial Question of law - Cash Credit - Assessee furnished complete addresses of all the creditors along with GIR numbers /PAN as well as confirmations along with copies of assessment orders passed in the cases of individual creditors, wherever available, and copies of returns filed by the creditors bin the remaining cases - All loans were received and repaid by the assessee by account payee cheques along with interest - Tribunal deleted the addition - no substantial question of law arises -appeal of the department dismissed. C. CIT vs. Rohini Builders 254 ITR 275 Supreme Court dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has paid interest to Shri O.P. Singh and Smt. Reema Rastogi. The addition of remaining creditors has been made without any reason whatsoever. All the creditors have filed their confirmations. In the case of Jalan Timbers vs CIT 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati) and Sona Electric Co. vs CIT 152 ITR 507(Delhi), the Hon'ble Courts have laid down that In order to establish the fact of receipt of a cash credit as required under section 68 of the Act the assessee must prove three important conditions, namely, (1) the identity of the person, (2) the genuineness of the transaction, and (3) the capability of the person giving the cash credit. Section 68 of the Ac: makes it clear that in respect of a cash credit entry the explanation offered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in making an addition in the case of the appellant. The addition of ₹ 10,97,380/- made by the Assessing Officer is directed to be deleted giving consequential relief to the appellant. Ground of appeal is allowed. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, but could not point out any specific defect in the order of the ld. CIT(A). We, however, have carefully examined the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we find that except one, all the cash credits are within the range between ₹ 3,881/- and ₹ 50,000/- and the assessee has placed relevant evidence to prove the genuineness of the cash credit and identity of the creditors. Since the ld. CIT(A) has properly examined the cash credits in the light ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
