9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of Rs. 1,44,00,000/-when the assessee has failed to prove the capacity, identity and creditworthiness of the lenders. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact in deleting addition of Rs. 1,44,00,000/-000/- as the plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts made it clear that assessee is expected to establish proof of identity of his creditors, capacity of creditors to advance money and genuineness of the transactions. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact in deleting addition as per provision to section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act of Rs. 1,13,83,287/-(14941811 - 3558524) when assessee is having substantial interest in the companies from where loan was taken. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any Authorised Representative. On an earlier date of hearing fixed on 11.04.2018 hearing was adjourned, at the written request of Sh. Sumit Bajaj, Advocate. On subsequent dates of hearings fixed on 25.09.2018, 17.12.2018, 13.08.2019, 13.05.2019, 08.07.2019, 16.09.2019 and 04.11.2019 also; neither the assessee was present in person nor was represented by any Authorised Representative. In the absence of any representation from the assessee's side we are deciding this appeal after hearing the Learned Senior Departmental Representative ("Ld. Sr.DR" for short), in accordance with Rule 25 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Departmental Representative drew our attention to the fact that nowhere in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant, or (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant. However, the Ld. CIT(A) had failed to provide such reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) had only provided a perfunctory opportunity, and a very short time to the Assessing Officer. The letter asking the Assessing Officer to send report is dated 08.03.2016 whereas the time was allowed to the Assessing Officer up to an earlier date 16.03.2015. It is not understood how a letter dated 08.03.2016 can be responded to by the Assessing Officer by an earlier date of 16.03.2015. Even if 16.03.2015 is treated as a typographical mistake, and read as 16.03.2016, even then, the time allowed by the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
