9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue read as under: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act of Rs. 13,48,00,000/- received by the assesse from M/s. Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that there is no requirement for assesse to prove the source of funds in the hands of M/s. Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., because this was a case of repayment of loan given in the financial year 2007-08 by the assesse. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to see that loan money given earlier was not lying dormant in bank account of M/s. Prakrutt Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., to be "returned" this year and was applied elsewhere necessitating fresh, fl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m M/s Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is current liability in subsequent years and the said liability of M/s Prakruti Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is repaid. Amount received from Mr. Dharmendra Bhanushali & Tulsi Bhanushali is towards booking of flat No. 501 & 502 and the abovesaid amount is shown in the balance sheet as an advances received towards flat." However, the AO was not convinced with the above explanation of the assessee for the reason that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the Director and the related parties were not proved along with any supporting documentary evidence. Therefore, the AO made an addition of Rs. 14,78,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned, the appellant has filed copies of cheques issued by these parties, confirmation letters from these parties as well as the registered agreement of sale of flats with these parties. Accordingly, the additions made under section 68 of the IT act in respect of sums received from these parties are liable to be deleted. However, the copies of confirmation and the copies of the cheques issued by these parties were not available before the AO, though the relevant registered agreements of sale were made available to the AO. Therefore, the appellant is directed to file a copy of these documents before the AO who shall satisfy himself regarding the correctness of the documents filed by the appellant and delete the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese documents were duly verified by the AO while forwarding his remand report to the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant materials on record. So far as receipt of Rs. 13,48,50,000/- from Prakruti Infrastructure P. Ltd. is concerned the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that since this is a case of repayment of loan given by the assessee, there is no requirement on the part of the assessee to prove the source of funds in the hands of Prakruti Infrastructure P. Ltd. There cannot be any dispute on the above reasoning. We are supported by the decision in Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and M/s SDB Estate Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In so far as, the receipt of Rs. 50,00,000/- from Shri Dharmendra Bhanushali and Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
