TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of the loan creditors has not been conclusively established before the lower authorities, hence, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition of ₹ 13,00,000/- i.e. (Rs. 5 lacs from Sh. Inderjeet Kumar and ₹ 8 lacs from Sh. Mahavir Singh) and held that these loans are not genuine and treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 As regards the addition/confirmation of ₹ 10 lacs is concerned, which was also an unsecured loan from Sh. Kumudani Jhangu, for the assessment year 2008-09, we find that the assessee has filed the copy of Income Tax Return filed on 30.9.2008 of Sh. Kumudani Jhangu, for the assessment year 2008-09 and also his Income Tax Return for the AY 2008-09 reflecting the amount of ₹ 10 u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act ) was issued on 05.08.2009. Thereafter, the AR attended the assessment proceedings only once more as per the assessment order, i.e. on 24.11.2010 to file certain details, and thereafter, nobody attended for the proceedings. Ultimately, the AO passed an ex-parte order estimating the business income of the appellant at ₹ 4 lacs. The AO noticed that the assessee had made an investment in two properties totaling ₹ 50,57,379/-. He also noticed that the assessee had taken a bank loan from HDFC Bank amounting to ₹ 25 lacs and unsecured loans amounting to ₹ 23 lacs. Since, no further details were filed, the balance amount of ₹ 2,57,379/- (Rs.50,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Vimal Kumar from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009; copy of sale deed dated 14.2.2008 between Sh. Vikas Jain and Sh. Vimal Kumar; copy of sale deed dated 26.3.2008 between Central Warehousing Corporation and Sh. Vimal Kumar; copy of bank statement from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008; copy of income tax return filed on 30.9.2008 of Sh. Kumudani Jhangu, for the assessment year 2008-09; copy of letter by the ITO, Ward 24(1), addressed to Sh. Kumudani Jhangu; copy of income tax return filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 alongwith the statement of assessable income and copy of statement of affairs as on 31.3.2007 and 31.3.2008. The assessee has certified that all the above mentioned documents contained in the paper book are the true copies of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 31.3.2008. 7.1 We find that Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in dispute vide para no. 4.5 to 4.6 as under:- 4.5 In Ground Nos. 3, 6 and 8, the appellant has impugned the addition of ₹ 23 lacs to his income u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. The appellant submitted that loans amounting to ₹ 23 lacs were taken from Smt. Kumudani Janghu (Rs. 10 lacs), Sh. Mahavir Singh (Rs. 8 lacs) and Sh. Inderjeet Kumar (Rs. 5 lacs). The appellant submitted that these were unsecured loans and the bank statements of these parties were never called for by the AO. Accordingly, the appellant filed an application under Rule 46 for submission of additional evidence, which was accepted and a Remand Report regarding the same was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank account. The other two loan creditors were not produced before the undersigned despite repeated opportunities given to the appellant and his counsel. It is noticed that Sh. Inderjeet Kumar deposited ₹ 4,90,000/- in cash in his bank account on 08.02.2008 and gave a cheque of ₹ 5 lacs to the appellant on 11.02.2008. Similarly, Sh. Mahavir Singh, S/o. Sh. Dilip Singh deposited cash amounting to ₹ 9,50,000/- in his bank account on 13.02.2008 and gave a cheque of ₹ 8 lacs to the appellant on 14.02.2008. As regards Smt. Kumudani Janghu, she deposited cash amounting to ₹ 5 lacs on 19.02.2008 in her bank account in Union Bank of India. Another amount of ₹ 5 lacs in cash was deposited in her bank on 20.02.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that these loans are not genuine and treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, because these two loans i.e. ₹ 5 lacs and ₹ 8 lacs were not reflected neither in the Income Tax Return of the Donor as well as in the Income Tax Return of the assessee. Therefore, we upheld the addition of ₹ 13 lacs i.e. (Rs. 5 lacs from Sh. Inderjeet Kumar and ₹ 8 lacs from Sh. Mahavir Singh). 7.2.1. However, as regards the addition/confirmation of ₹ 10 lacs is concerned, which was also an unsecured loan from Sh. Kumudani Jhangu, for the assessment year 2008-09, we find that the assessee has filed the copy of Income Tax Return filed on 30.9.2008 of Sh. Kumudani Jhangu, for the assessment year 2008-09 and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
