TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n fact deleting the addition in contravention of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962 of ₹ 3,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained introduction of Capital though the assessee could not explain the source of capital contribution during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. Briefly, the facts on ground No.1, noted above, are that the AO made addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- by treating fresh capital contribution to be unexplained. According to the AO, the assessee failed to explain the source of the capital contribution. The addition was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) and it was explained that the assessee filed Xerox copy of capital account of proprietary concern appearing in its audited books of account, which would cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with reply, but the AO chose not to refer the same in the assessment order. Even in the remand report filed by the AO at the appellate stage, reply of the assessee has not been disputed. The assessee has given a certificate in the paper book that all these evidences were filed before the AO. On considering all the above facts, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue on this ground. The assessee in the paper book has given certificate that the reply dated 05.12.2007 was filed before the AO which contained copy of the bank account of assessee, through the amounts have been transferred to the current account of the proprietary concern of the assessee. Thus, the assessee filed relevant documents before the AO at the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explained loan by invoking the provisions of section 68 of IT Act ignoring the fact that the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the loan and the alleged creditor M/s. Abhinav Vinimay (P) Ltd. has not confirmed the fact of loan required by it through notice u/s. 133(6) of IT Act. 5. The AO made addition of ₹ 18,00,000/- on account of unexplained loan received from M/s. Abhinav Vinimay (P) Ltd., a concern of Kolkata. The assessee was required to furnish complete address of the party, copy of their account and mode of receipt of loan and confirmation to justify taking of loan in terms of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. According to the AO, requisite details were not furnished. Therefore, the AO is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record. The assessee relied upon several decisions in support of his contention. The submissions of the assessee and evidences were forwarded to the AO for remand report. The ld. CIT(A) considering the evidences and remand report of the AO found that the assessee received loans of ₹ 10,00,000/- and ₹ 8,00,000/- through account payee cheques drawn on IDBI Bank, Kolkata. The assessee furnished reply dated 05.12.2007 before the AO, in which the same details were also furnished. The ld. CIT(A) found that the AO has not objected to the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor in the remand report. The creditor is assessed to tax and loan is shown in their records. The genuineness of the transaction is confirmed by filing confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called for. The AO in the remand report merely reiterated the findings given in the assessment order, but did not dispute the evidence and replies filed at the assessment stage. He submitted that the notice issued u/s. 133(6) was defective and was sent at the earlier address of the creditor which was corrected in the subsequent proceedings. Thus, the notice was incorrect and sent at the wrong address. He has submitted that in the fresh confirmation, correct address of the creditor was notified, but the AO did not send any notice at the correct address of the assessee. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. He has submitted that no fresh evidences were filed at the appellate stage. 8. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Kuldeep Industrial Corporation (supra) in support of our findings. Further, we may also note that the ld. counsel for the assessee has been able to point out that defective notice u/s. 133(6) had been issued to the assessee. The AO reproduced this notice in the assessment order, which was sent to the creditor at Brabourne Road, 5th Floor, Kolkata. This was the initial address furnished by the assessee in the confirmation of this creditor, copy of which is filed at page 18 of the paper book. The address given in the notice u/s. 133(6) would, thus, prove the stand of the assessee that the assessee filed reply dated 05.12.2007 before the AO, otherwise, there was no reason for the AO to send this notice at the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
