TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any material/evidence on record to prove that the assessee had personal expenses over and above the disclosed sum of ₹ 35,38,395/- towards drawings. We also find that the ld.AO had also not brought any material/evidence to prove that the cash withdrawals made from said Axis Bank, Mumbai have been spent elsewhere by the assessee thereby the said cash is not available to remain as closing cash balance. - Decided against revenue. Unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 - Held that:- We find that the wild allegation is made by the ld.AO that the assessee has laundered his unaccounted money/income and the same is brought back in the form of loan. We find from the entries of the bank statement of the loan creditor that no cash was deposited in the account of the loan creditor immediately before issuing the cheques to the assessee. On the contrary, there were other high value transactions reflected in the bank statement of the loan creditor. Hence, the basic allegation that the assessee has laundered his unaccounted income is not prima facie proved by the ld. AO even during the remand proceedings when the ld.AO got the second opportunity to make necessary verification by using his stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case the Ld. CIT-(A) erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 6,00,000/- made by A.O. on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the assessee's cash withdrawals from the explained sources were never utilized for expenses and in fact used to shore up his explained capital by utilyising unexplained cash for his actual family expenses. 4. The ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the ld.AO and argued that it is very unlikely that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, the ld.AO was justified in making the impugned addition on this issue. In response to this, the ld.AR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and argued that the ld.CIT(A) had made detailed observation about the total heads of income of the assessee and various personal expenses that have been incurred by the assessee. Thus he argued that there is no need to make any addition towards household expenses. Without prejudice to the addition, he further argued that the Learned AO having stated that the sources for meeting the household expenses were cash withdrawals from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e furnished the name, address and income-tax particulars of the said loan creditor together with balance sheet and return acknowledgements of the loan creditor to explain the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions before the ld.AO. It was found that monies were received by the assessee by a/c payee cheques. The assessee also furnished the bank statement of the lender to prove the immediate source of credit. The ld.AO found that the assessee had not discharged his onus in terms of section 68 of the Act by proving the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the lender. The ld.AO also made various observations about the financial capacity of the lender in his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. On 1st appeal, the ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the impugned addition on this issue. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground:- 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT-(A) erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,50,00,000/- made by A.O. on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A)'s Order in treating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vances and also derived interest income of ₹ 1,70,95,047/- during the year in which the loan was advanced by them to the assessee. Accordingly, he prayed before us for confirmation the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO on this count. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the detailed paper book containing the statement of computation of total income for the AY 2008-09 salary certificate to this effect in page 1-5 of the assessee s paper book, assessee s personal balance sheet as at 31.03.2008, Capital A/c Income Expenditure A/c in page 6-8 of the paper book, Copies of loan confirmation issued by M/s. Bright Impex Agencies Pvt. Ltd for the FYs. 2007-08, 08-09 09-10 in pages 13-15 of the paper book, copy of audited annual financial accounts of M/s. Bright Impex Agencies Pvt. Ltd for the FY 2007-08 in pages 16- 28 of the paper book, copy of bank statement in respect of Current A/c No.95111010006717 of M/s. Bright Impex Agencies Pvt. Ltd in pages 29-32 of the assessee s paper book, PAN details of M/s. Bright Impex Agencies Pvt. Ltd in page 33 of the assessee s paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... creditworthiness of the creditor and had satisfied all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act. We find that the ld.AO had not chosen to issue summon/notice u/s. 133(6)/131 of the Act to verify the loan creditor and its veracity together with the creditworthiness of the loan creditor. We find that the wild allegation is made by the ld.AO that the assessee has laundered his unaccounted money/income and the same is brought back in the form of loan. We find from the entries of the bank statement of the loan creditor that no cash was deposited in the account of the loan creditor immediately before issuing the cheques to the assessee. On the contrary, there were other high value transactions reflected in the bank statement of the loan creditor. Hence, the basic allegation that the assessee has laundered his unaccounted income is not prima facie proved by the ld. AO even during the remand proceedings when the ld.AO got the second opportunity to make necessary verification by using his statutory powers vested on him and provided to him in the statute. We find that the facts of the case clearly proved that the assessee had completely discharged his onus by filing all the documentar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
