TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turned in the impugned order passed by the CIT (A) so far as addition of ₹ 40,06,198/- is concerned. So, the findings returned by the ld. CIT (A) in this regard are hereby affirmed. In view of above the addition made by AO/affirmed by ld. CIT (A) to the tune of ₹ 7,00,000/- (in case of Smt. Usha Agarwal, Ellora Mohanty, Ashutosh Mohapatra & Smt. Urmila Modi of ₹ 2,50,000/-, ₹ 1,50,000/-, ₹ 1,00,000/- & ₹ 2,00,000/- respectively) is hereby ordered to be deleted, however appeal of the assessee qua the remaining addition of ₹ 40,06,198/- made on account of unsecured loan from M/s. Khoobsurat Limited is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. - ITA NO.45/CTK/2016 - - - Dated:- 29-5-2017 - SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri B. Panda B.R. Panda, ARs For The Revenue : Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The Appellant, Shri Rakesh Modi (hereinafter referred to as the assessee ) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer as erroneous insofar as the same is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on the ground that AO did not examine properly the unsecured loan creditors detailed as under:- i. Smt. Usha Agarwal Rs.2,50,000/- ii. Ellora Mohanty Rs.1,50,000/- iii. Ashutosh Mohapatra Rs.1,00,000/- iv. Smt. Urmila Modi Rs.2,00,000/- v. M/s. Khoobsurant Ltd. Kolkata Rs.40,06,198/- 3. During assessment proceedings, AO called information u/s 133 (6) of the Act from the aforesaid creditors, namely, Smt. Usha Agarwal, Ellora Mohanty, Ashutosh Mohapatra Smt. Urmila Modi who have lent amount of ₹ 2,50,000/-, ₹ 1,50,000/-, ₹ 1,00,000/- ₹ 2,00,000/- respectively and came to the conclusion that immediately prior to the issuance of the cheque by aforesaid lenders to the assessee, cash was deposited in their bank account and there was negligible balance in their bank accounts. Consequently, AO ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ohanty, Ashutosh Mohapatra Smt. Urmila Modi to the assessee. 9. Undisputedly, Smt. Usha Agarwal, Ellora Mohanty, Ashutosh Mohapatra Smt. Urmila Modi advanced unsecured loan of ₹ 2,50,000/-, ₹ 1,50,000/-, ₹ 1,00,000/- ₹ 2,00,000/- respectively to the assessee during the year under assessment through banking channel. AO as well as CIT (A) disputed their creditworthiness on the sole ground that few days prior to the grant of such unsecured loan, cash deposits were made in the bank accounts of the aforesaid loan creditors and after grant of the aforesaid loan, meager amount remained in their bank account. 10. To prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction of ₹ 2,50,000/- made by Smt. Usha Agarwal, assessee brought on record copy of PAN, return of income along with computation of income for AY 2007-08 and balance sheet as on 31.03.2007 and 31.03.2008, available at pages 52 to 60 of the Paper Book. Perusal of the balance sheet as on 31.03.2008 pertaining to Usha Agarwal goes to prove that she was having balance of ₹ 10,15,684.53 as on 31.03.2008 at her disposal out of which she has categorical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be deleted. 13. Next addition of ₹ 2,00,000/- on account of credit of unsecured loan made by Smt. Urmila Modi to the assessee. Ld. AR for the assessee contended that this credit advance of ₹ 2,00,000/- pertains to AY 2007-08 and has no concern with the year under assessment and this fact has also been observed by CIT (A) in his order passed u/s 263 of the Act. On perusal of the copy of PAN, return of income along with computation of income and balance sheet as on 31.03.2007 and bank certificate issued by Bank of India dated 09.11.2013, available at pages 80 to 87 of the paper book, it becomes apparently clear that the said unsecured loan of ₹ 2,00,000/- was given by way of cheque no.183173 out of account no.6270 of Urmila Modi to the assessee on 04.05.2006 and as such has no concern with the year under assessment. So, the AO/ CIT(A) have erred in making/affirming of an addition of ₹ 2,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee during the year under assessment. 14. Assessee received unsecured loan of ₹ 40,06,198/- from M/s. Khoobsurat Limited, IRN Mukherjee Road, Mezanine Floor, Room No.12, Kolkata. AO/CIT (A) made an additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a position to advance huge loan of ₹ 40,06,198/-. 18. Not only this, it is categorically brought on record by the Revenue by recording the statement of assessee himself that through one of his friend, the assessee came into contact of M/s. Khoobsurat Limited. It is otherwise improbable to believe that at the instance of one friend whose antecedents have not come on record, a company M/s. Khoobsurat Limited situated at Kolkata, has advanced a huge loan of ₹ 40,06,198/- to the assessee. 19. Furthermore, when all these facts are examined in the light of the fact that the assessee has miserably failed to prove the physical existence of M/s. Khoobsurat Limited by producing any of its director during assessment proceedings and as per circumstantial evidence collected by the Revenue, M/s. Khoobsurat Limited found to be closed for so many months, the documentary evidence brought on record by the assessee does not inspire confidence to believe the assessee s story. 20. Merely because of the fact that the payment was received by cheque or that the lender company appears on the file of Registrar of Companies, registered with the stock exchange of the company, it is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
