TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee s appeal is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Unexplained cash credit - loan received by the assessee as unexplained - HELD THAT:- In the case of Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [ 1986 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] as held that merely because summons issued to some of the creditors could not be served or they fail to appear before the AO cannot be the basis to treat the loans taken by the assessee from those creditors as non-genuine. It was also held that if the AO was not satisfied about the cash amount deposited by those creditors in their bank account, the proper course should have been to make assessments in the case of those creditors by treating the cash deposits in their bank account as unexplained investm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dividend income of ₹ 1,49,519/- received by the assessee during the year under consideration, the disallowance u/s 14A was restricted by the AO to ₹ 1,49,519/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowance made by the AO. 4. I have heard the arguments of both sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. The limited contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee is that the actual dividend income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration was only ₹ 9,687/- and, therefore, the disallowance u/s 14A should be restricted ₹ 9,687/-. However, as pointed out by the learned DR from the order of the Assessing Officer, the amount of exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar under consideration was only ₹ 16,30,159/-. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances of the case, the AO held that the creditworthiness of the concerned loan creditor was not satisfactorily established and even the genuineness of the transaction was not proved. He accordingly treated the loan of ₹ 9,00,000/- claimed to be received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit and addition of ₹ 9,00,000/- was made by him to the total income of the assessee u/s 68. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition holding that even though the identity of the loan creditor was established, the creditworthiness of the said creditor as well as the genuineness of the loan transaction was not proved. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st during the year under consideration for F.Y. 2013-14. He contended that the loan in question received by the assessee during the year under consideration thus was duly explained by the assessee in terms of section 68 by discharging the primary onus that lay on him and the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 68 by treating the same as unexplained cash credit is not sustainable. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 and Gujarat High Court in the case of Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360. 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the authorities below in support of the revenue s case that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e concerned loan creditor as well as to establish the genuineness of the relevant loan transaction thus was duly discharged by the assessee. It is also observed that interest was paid by the assessee on the said loan and deduction claimed by the assessee for such interest was also allowed by the AO. It is observed that the AO still treated the loan in question received by the assessee during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 for the reason that the notice issued u/s 133(6) to the concerned loan creditor was returned back unserved by the postal authority and there were cash deposits found to be made in the bank statement of loan creditor before issuing cheque to the assessee for the loan in question. In the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
