9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the delay in filing the appeals before the Bench is bonafide and is beyond their control. It was in this backdrop prayed that the delay in filing the appeals may be condoned and appeals be admitted for adjudication. 3. After hearing the rival submissions, we have perused the condonation petitions alongwith affidavits. We are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals is due to reasonable cause and, accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.264/CTK/2018: A.Y. 2011-12-Subash Agarwal 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds: " 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) Confirming the order of Ld. Assessing Officer is arbitrary and bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering the Rs. 50.00 Lakhs received by the appellant from Smt. Sanju Agarwal his wife as unexplained cash credit U/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in ignoring the submission filed before the Ld. Assessing Officer considering the repayment of Rs. 23.25 Lakhs to Smt. Sanju Agarwal as unexplained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Ground No.6 of appeal before the Tribunal has accepted this addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A). Ld A.R. further submitted that in the balance sheet of the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12, the unsecured loan received from his wife Smt. Sanju Agarwal of Rs. 26,75,000/- has been shown in the balance sheet and simultaneously, Smt. Sanju Agarwal has also shown unsecured loan of Rs. 23,25,000/- from the assessee. Ld counsel also submitted that this confusion arose due to the fact that the AO found that the assessee had claimed to have borrowed unsecured loan of Rs. 50 lakhs from Smt. Sanju Agarwal during financial year 2010-2011 and also claim to have repaid loan amounting to Rs. 23,25,000/- to Smt. Sanju Agarwal. While verifying the statement of affairs in the case of Smt. Sanju Agarwal, the Assessing Officer found that Smt. Sanju Agarwal had shown to have borrowed unsecured loan of Rs.,23,25,000/- from the assessee and Smt. Sanju Agarwal had not shown any loans and advances given to the assessee during the financial year 2010- 2011 in her statement of affairs. The Assessing Officer concluded that that the assessee had got Rs. 50,00,000/- from his undisclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleted. 10. Replying to above, ld DR strongly supported the assessment and first appellate order. However, in all fairness, he submitted that since the assessee has conceded the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs as addition u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act, therefore, consequent effect of this situation has to be taken care of in the respective accounts of the assessee and his wife. 11. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the considered view that if the assessee has accepted the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs received from the account of ARRS Developers Ltd., to his bank account as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act, without any other evidence, same amount cannot be added in the hands of the assessee as received by Sanju Agarwal as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Hence, Ground No.2 of the assessee stands allowed. 12. Further after reversing the entire amount of Rs. 50 lakhs without treating the same as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee, reverse accounting entry has to be made which would result that the amount of Rs. 23,25,000/- has to be treated as due to the wife of the assessee and entry of unsecured loan from his wife that the amount of Rs. 23,25,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sustainable. Therefore, Ground Nos.3 & 4 of assessee are allowed. 14. Apropos Ground No.5 of appeal, ld A.R. submitted that the AO was not justified in making addition u/s.68 of the Act of Rs. 1,25,000/- payable to the daughter of the assessee Smt Silpa Agarwal against towards sale of shares of M/s. ARSS Infrastructure Project Ltd.,. Therefore, same may kindly be deleted. 15. Replying to above, ld D.R. submitted that from the statement of facts of Silpa Agarwal for the financial year 2010- 2011 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12, it was noticed by the AO that no loan was paid to the assessee during the same period by Silpa Agarwal. Therefore, the explanation offered by the assessee was not found satisfactory and hence, the amount was added in the hands of the assessee u/s.68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. Further, drawing our attention to para 4.1 of the CIT(A) order, ld D.R. submitted that even during the course of appellate proceedings, no material was produced by the assessee and in absence of necessary evidence, the explanation given before the AO by the assessee cannot be given any credence and hence, addition in this regard may kindly be sustained. 16. Having c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
