9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is wholly unjustified to make an additi of Rs. 1,82,00,000/- (wrongly typed 1,80,00,000/-) merely on suspicion and surmises . 3. For that the loan creditor, a register Private Limited Company, being genuine and identifiable person should not have been treated as unreal and un-genuine or in other words the transaction being a loan transaction should not have been disbelieved . 4. For that the learned AO eared in arriving at a conclusion that " the loan transaction was in fact not Real Loan but a Gift " . 5.For that in any view of the case the addition of Rs. 1,82,000/- (wrongly typed Rs. 1,80,00,000/-)under head Income from other Sources as made is arbitrary and unjustified . 6. For that the addition of Rs. 3,70,000/- by disallowing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AN No., bank statement of the loan creditor and audited accounts, wherein, loan advanced to the assessee is reflected. Further, it was submitted that the assessee also filed audited accounts of the assessee company and its bank statement, which shows that the entire loan amount was received by cheques through banking channel and has been duly shown by the assessee. The assessee has paid interest on the loan to the said loan creditor and has also deducted tax at source from the said interest payment. He submitted that the Assessing officer wanted to confirm the transaction directly from the loan creditor M/s. Pyramid Suppliers (P) Ltd., therefore, he sent notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, which was not returned unserved. Hence, it was submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Investigation Wing. Further, it was also pointed out that a further loan of Rs. 2,62,00,000/- in the assessment year 2013-14 and Rs. 1,20,00,000/- in the assessment year 2014-15 was received by the assessee's successor firm in the hands of the said successor firm. These subsequent loans were duly accepted by the Assessing Officer in an assessment made u/s.143(3) of the Act. Hence, it was prayed that the addition made should be deleted. 8. On the other hand, ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities but could not controvert the submissions of ld A.R. of the assessee 9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the assessee claimed to have r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents. He pointed out that PAN was allotted by the Income tax Department to the said loan creditor. Thus, the identity of the said loan creditor is not in doubt. Further, confirmation from the said loan creditor as well as copy of the bank statement where from loan was advanced by the said loan creditor establishes the genuineness of the loan transaction. Further, no cash was deposited in the bank account of the loan creditor before advancing the loan to the assessee. The availability of fund in the bank account of the loan creditor and the reflection of the said loan amount in the audited balance sheet of the said loan creditor shows the creditworthiness of the loan creditor. He submitted that merely because no reply was given by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. If that be so, we are of the view that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee merely because reply has not been received by the AO in response to notice issued under Section 133(6). The AO having issue the notice and such notice having been served on the person concerned, the AO has to take the process to the logical end. He cannot draw adverse inference merely because reply has not been received. Submission of the reply in an independent enquiry being carried out by the AO by issue of notice under Section 133(6) from the person concerned directly is not in the hands of the assessee. The AO may be justified in certain circumstances when notice is not served or when an adverse reply is received in response to no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e therein neither the name of the loan creditor from M/s. Pyramid Suppliers (P) Ltd., nor the name of the assessee is appearing. Thus, we find force in the submission of the assessee that the said statement cannot be relied against the assessee as it no way impeaches the transaction in question. 15. Further, the assessee also pointed out that a further loan of Rs. 2,62,00,000/- in the assessment year 2013-14 and Rs. 1,20,00,000/- in the assessment year 2014-15 was received by the assessee's successor firm in the hands of the said successor firm. These subsequent loans were duly accepted by the Assessing Officer in an assessment made u/s.143(3) of the Act. 16. It was also pointed out that the entire loan alongwith interest thereon was duly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
