TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CIT (A) as income of the Assessee. As regards the loans given by Jyoti Kukreja and and Suresh Kukreja, the bank statements, addresses and PAN numbers of of the said two individuals were provided. The CIT (A) found no reason to disbelieve the creditworthiness of the two individuals or the genuineness of the loan transactions. Indeed, if the AO had any doubt in this regard, he could have summon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue before this Court is whether the ITAT erred in upholding the deletion made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] of the addition of ₹ 1,56,15,135/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) on account of unexplained credit. 3. The brief facts are that the Assessee filed a return of income for the AY in question declaring a loss of ₹ 5,48 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the appeal, deleted the above addition. This has been affirmed by the ITAT. 5. At the outset, a submission is made by learned counsel for the Revenue that with Assessee not having participated in the proceedings before the ITAT, the matter ought to have been remanded by the ITAT to the CIT (A) for a fresh determination. 6. The Court finds that before the CIT (A), the Authorize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,00,000.00 (iv) Nancy Bhatia 4,00,000.00 1,56,15,135.52 8. Of the above, the loans borrowed from Deepak Bhatia and Nancy Bhatia of ₹ 2 and 4 lacs respectively were old loans and, therefore, rightly not treated by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
