TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO or even before CIT(A) or even before us. CIT(A) has discussed four items of loans in case of G.S.Bricks, New Bharat Shuttering Store, Pyare Lal Rajinder Kumar, Punjab Trading Co. from whom loans of ₹ 2 Lacs, ₹ 2 Lacs, ₹ 3 Lacs, and ₹ 3.50 lacs have respectively been taken. However the relief has been allowed to the extent of ₹ 20 lacs without any discussion in respect of the rest of the items amounting to ₹ 9,50,000/-. In the four cases, in our opinion the CIT has correctly accepted the loans because the amount comes through cheques and confirmation of PAN numbers were furnished. However, since no discussion has been made in respect of other loans to the extent of ₹ 9,50,000/- therefore we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) in respect of the rest of the items amounting to ₹ 9,50,000/- and remit the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the issue after recording findings in respect of such items also - Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos. 224/Chd/2013 And 232/Chd/2013 - - - Dated:- 25-3-2015 - Shri H.L. Karwa And Shri T.R. Sood, JJ. Assessee By : Shri . Sudhir Sehgal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inder Kumar shows no credit of interest income. Only loan amount has been shown. (vi).. The lenders did not have the capacity to advance such huge amount as they had meager income. (vii).. The lenders have not given the details of their bank accounts from where such payments have been made. 3.. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts that while submitting the remand report, the AO had specifically objected to the admission of additional evidence at appellate stage under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 4. After hearing both the parties we find that a search was conducted in the Motia group of cases and assessee is a part of the same group. During the assessment proceedings it was noticed that assessee has shown unsecured loans amounting to ₹ 1,17,57,702/- and therefore assessee was required to prove these unsecured loans by showing identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the parties. Certain details were filed by the assessee. However no confirmations were filed in the following cases : S.No. Name of the person Address Amount of loan(Rs) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Dhakauli tehsil Mohali, Pb 45000 22 Vinod Jain Panchkula 100000 23 Vinod Kumar No address given by the assessee 200000 24 Vipin Kumar H.No. 225, new lal bag colony, Patiala 300000 Total 41,59,000 In the absence of any confirmation the sum of ₹ 41,59,000 was added to the income of the assessee. 5. On appeal certain additional evidences were filed in the form of confirmation etc. and the same were sent for obtaining remand report. Finally the issue had been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) vide para 7 8 which is as under: 7. I have considered the issue of admission of additional evidence as sought by the appellant and comments of the Assessing Officer on the same. It is a matter of fact that the Assessing Officer had given number of opportunities to the appellant at the time of assessment to file confirmations as well as address / related identity information resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant on the loans raised and the tax has already been deducted as sources before the payment of same. The said amounts are as under:- i. G.S. Bricks: The amount from this lender had been received by two cheques dated 23/3/2004 and 6/4/2004 for ₹ 2 Lac each and interest amounting to ₹ 35,753/- had been paid on which TDS amounting to ₹ 3738 had been deducted. ii. New Bharat Shuttering Store:_ Demand draft dated 18/02/2005 amounting to to ₹ 2 lac on which interest amounting to ₹ 18,000/- had been paid tax as deducted amounting to ₹ 1882/- The amount has been returned alongwith interest by cheque dated 7/5/2005 and 20/5/2005. iii. Pyare Lal Rajinder Kumar Demand draft dated 18/2/2005 amounting to to ₹ 3 lac on which interest amounting to ₹ 18,000/- had been paid tax as deducted amounting to ₹ 1882/- The amount has been returned alongwith interest by cheque dated 25/12/2005. The said lender alongwith others for specifically mentioning their PAN for any independent verification. iv. Punjab Trading Co. Demand draft dated 18/2/2005 amounting to to ₹ 3.50 lac on which interest amounting to ₹ 23,215/- had been paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation for admission of additional evidence is rejected. 9. In the light of the rejection of application for additional evidence the ground raised by the assessee required to be dismissed because assessee has miserably failed to prove the loans to the extent of ₹ 41,59,000/- because no confirmation or any evidence proving such transaction was furnished before AO or even before Ld.CIT(A) or even before us. 10. As far as the Revenue s appeal is concerned, we have already reproduced the para 7 and 8 of the impugned order. Careful perusal of para 8 would show that Ld. CIT(A) has discussed four items of loans in case of G.S.Bricks, New Bharat Shuttering Store, Pyare Lal Rajinder Kumar, Punjab Trading Co. from whom loans of ₹ 2 Lacs, ₹ 2 Lacs, ₹ 3 Lacs, and ₹ 3.50 lacs have respectively been taken. However the relief has been allowed to the extent of ₹ 20 lacs without any discussion in respect of the rest of the items amounting to ₹ 9,50,000/-. In the four cases, in our opinion the Ld. CIT has correctly accepted the loans because the amount comes through cheques and confirmation of PAN numbers were furnished. However, since no discussion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
