TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue the lender to determine their credit worthiness. Moreover, there was no adverse material in the hands of AO which casts aspersions on the genuineness of transaction. Mere non compliance of summon cannot be the basis to make addition. - No additions - Decided against revenue Addition on loan and advances - Held that:- since the amount advanced was in the nature of loan which was repayable in future and hence the provision of section 56(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked against the assessee and therefore the assessing officer was rightly directed to delete the impugned addition. In the background, CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference hence uphold the same - I.T.A. No. 4896/DEL/2015 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in deleting addition of ₹ 14,00,000/- whereas the onus was on the assessee to establish the failed to discharge his onus on the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of appellate proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT appeal. It is prayed that the order of the CIT (A) being contrary to the facts on record and the settled position of law, be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored . 3. The brief facts of the case are that Assessee filed his Return of income on 26.3.2008 declaring income of ₹ 1,59,810/- which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act and subsequently case w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has elaborately discussed the issue and gave his finding vide para no. 4.12 at page no. 14 of his impugned order. For the sake of convenience, the relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced below:- 4.12 I have carefully gone through the order of the AO and the submissions of the appellant. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant filed Confirmation, ITR, Computation of income, Bank statement, and Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2008 of the lender and the payment were made through The loan was also repaid back before the initiation of banking channels. The loan was also repaid back before the initiation of assessment proceedings. The AO did not make any specific enquiries in the assessment proceedings as well as in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be the basis to make addition. So in view of above and on the basis of various court cases relied upon by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and AO, I am of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that he is unable to sustain the addition of ₹ 22,54,388/- uls 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the assessing officer and accordingly the Assessing Officer was rightly directed to delete the impugned addition. In the background, I am of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference on my part, hence, I uphold the same. Accordingly, the ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 10. With regard to another effective ground no. 4 relating to deletion of addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. CIT(A), I find from the confirmation and affidavit of Sh. Anup Joshi wherein it was stated that he has advanced a sum of ₹ 14,00,000/- as loan to the assessee. In the present case, the intention to repay gets established by the fact that the Assessee has shown it as a loan in the balance sheet and this fact has been further supported by the Sh. Anup Joshi by submitting loan confirmation certificates during the course of the assessment proceedings and Additional evidences. Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidences to the AO during the course of appellate proceedings but he did not bring on record any adverse finding with regard to the validity of the documents. I note that the Ld. CIT(A) has also gone through the case laws r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
