9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer whereas the finding is that the Assessing Officer had not submitted a remand report. He urges that the report was admittedly on record, but neither the Commissioner of Income Tax nor the Appellate Tribunal has appreciated the same. The second contention is that the Commissioner of Income Tax has committed a manifest error by entertaining fresh evidence and then, proceeded to treat them as genuine without examining it independently. The third contention is that the Assessee had failed to disclose the source of the depositors or the capacity of the creditors and therefore, the transactions which were sham were clearly designed to evade tax which has not been appreciated by the authorities below. The other grounds have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of creditors, by furnishing the confirmations, copy of PAN, copy of ITR, copy of bank account and details of cheques received from lenders showing the details of TDS on interest payment on the loans obtained by appellant which were treated by A.O. as unexplained u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961. Further the appellant has also filed the copy of audit report alongwith its annexures and explained that the appellant has shown and claimed interest on these creditors in P&L account. The A.O. has allowed the interest payment to these cash creditors whereas the principal amount of loans reflected in the name of different creditors were wrongly treated unexplained cash credits and added back to the income of appellant. Further the appellant has duly deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued by this office. As mentioned supra the appellant has filed confirmation letters and bank statement in support of his version that from where the money was received by the appellant, PAN, copy of ITR, details of interest payment allowed by the A.O. on principal amount of these cash credits, therefore, the appellant has satisfactorily discharged obligation cast upon him to prove the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of different cash creditors of Rs. 2,42,90,000/- (Rs.42,40,000/- + Rs. 2,00,50,000/-). Therefore, the A.O. has wrongly made the additions of Rs. 2,42,90,000/-, treating loan amount, unexplained u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961. The entire transactions in respect of money received from different lenders were under taken thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
