TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e advanced money to the assessee in connection with the purchase of land through banking channels. It is also averred by the creditor that he has sufficient own funds, and the factum of assessee having deployed such funds towards the purchase of land for the said creditor has also been verified by the CIT(A), which is evident from the aforesaid extracted portion of his order. There is no controversion to any of the aforesaid findings recorded by the CIT(A) and, therefore, in this view of the matter, hereby affirm the order of the CIT(A) on this aspect. Thus, on this aspect, Revenue fails. - ITA NO. 1647/MUM/2017 - - - Dated:- 24-10-2017 - SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Ms. N. Hemalatha For The Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the loan of ₹ 5,00,000/- from M/s. Bhakti Book Distributors and ₹ 30,00,000/- from Shri Arvind Jain were not appropriately explained and, therefore, by invoking Sec. 68 of the Act he treated the same as unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) has deleted both the additions, against which Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Insofar as the addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- on account of loan received from M/s. Bhakti Book Distributors is concerned, the CIT(A) has deleted the addition by noticing that the said party had duly furnished the confirmation. On this aspect, the ld. DR pointed to the relevant discussion in para 4.3 of the assessment order wherein it is categorically observed by the Assessing Officer that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee had failed to satisfy the ingredients of Sec. 68 of the Act qua the loan of ₹ 5,00,000/- received from M/s. Bhakti Book Distributors and, therefore, the addition was justified. The CIT(A) has deleted the addition on an erroneous consideration, which is hereby set-aside. 6. Insofar as the receipt of ₹ 30,00,000/- from Shri Arvind Jain is concerned, the relevant discussion is contained in paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer noted that the said amount was received by the assessee on 05.09.2007 through an account payee cheque. The Assessing Officer noted that the bank account furnished by the creditor showed that immediately prior to making the payment to the assessee, there was a cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... creditor showed that the transaction was not genuine. It was also canvassed that the cash deposit in the account of the creditor prior to advancing of money to the assessee was also a good ground to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. In this manner, the addition has been sought to be defended. 8. On the other hand, the learned representative has vehemently pointed out that the CIT(A) has appropriately considered the evidence on record and found that the transaction stood properly explained. 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to notice the following findings arrived at by the CIT(A) :- On a careful consideration of the facts of the case I find that the whole addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the farmer as well as relevant details like PAN number et cetera. In the hearing conducted on 28th of November 2016 it was submitted that the payments were made by pay orders of ₹ 9.85 Lacs dated 28.11.2007 to Shri QSY Kothari. Further ₹ 3 lakhs were paid on on 12th of February 2000 made in the name of Aslam Tiwale. Further amount of ₹ 3 lakhs on 30th of June 2007 and 3 lakhs on 11.8.2007 were made by cheque to Shaida Mohammad and also further amount of ₹ 2 lakhs by cash. Further payment was made to Kishore Jain by cheque on 18th of February 2008 by ₹ 3 lakhs and ₹ 1 lakh by cash the relevant agreements of property et cetera have been filed before me. While the AO started from a very promising premise of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
