9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) [CIT(A)] is bad, both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition amounting to Rs. 43,46,970/- on account of unsecured loans, made by A.O. under section 68 of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 3,26,715/- despite the fact that the credits having appeared in earlier years no addition u/s 68 is called for. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO rejecting the explanation and evidences filed by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below the exemption limit: 1. Mrs. Sunita Mittal, wife of the assessee- source of money in her hand was explained as return of loans given earlier to Mr Hari Kishan Agarwal and M/s Arjun Gupta (HUF). 2. M/s Atul Mittal (HUF), Karta of which is the assessee himself. 3. Ms. Samya Mittal and Mr. Aryan Mittal-source of money in their hands was explained as fixed deposits made through gift from relatives 2.1 In absence of copy of return of income filed by the alleged unsecured loan creditors, the Assessing Officer was of the view that identity and creditworthiness of those parties was not proved and therefore the assessee failed to explain satisfactorily the nature and source of the cash credit. According to him, the assessee failed to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dress in the bank account is mentioned as B-2/7, Main Wali Nagar, Delhi-87, which is not the address mentioned by the appellant in this appeal." 2.4 Regarding, credit shown from Mrs Sunita Mittal, he sustained the addition, observing as under: "6.4 I have gone through the submissions/documents provided by the AR of appellant. It is observed from the confirmation given by Mrs. Sunita Mittal to support the said deposit in the hands of appellant that it Is only a confirmation of outstanding balance. It is stated that Smt. Sunita Mittal has received these funds from Mr. Flarikrishan Agarwal and Arjun Gupta (HUF). On going through the confirmation of account of Arjun Gupta (HUF), given to Mrs. Sunita Mittal, it is observed that Rs. 6,70,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and no statement of affairs of Mrs. Sunita Mittal has been provided to justify the amount of full loans given to Atul Mittal nor proves the source of the same to the full extent. 6.7 Therefore looking to the facts of this case and the submissions/ documents as well as discussions in the forgoing paragraphs, it is seen that the appellant could not justify the creditworthiness and genuineness of the unsecured loans in his hands and I do not find any reason to differ with the findings by the Assessing Officer." 3. Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee appeared through videoconferencing facility and filed a paper-book electronically. This paper-book has been found to be not certified as per the requirement of the ITAT Rules i.e. no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarding the claim of loan from MD Shaukat Ali, we find that no such name of the creditor was submitted before the lower authorities. The claim of the loan from this party has been made for the first time before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an audited balance sheet as on 31/03/2015, which is available on page No.3 (three) of the paper-book. We do not understand, how the assessee failed to explain name of this unsecured loan party, if it was appearing in the audited balance-sheet. Further, the claim has been made before us for the first time that this loan was not obtained in the year under consideration. 4.4 In our opinion, it was the duty and responsibility of the assessee to file the claim correctly before the lower authorities a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Return of Arjun Gupta (HUF) and Kotak Mahindra Bank statement of Mrs Sunita Mittal. Major source on unsecured loan advanced has been explained as return of loan given earlier from Mr. HK Agrwal along with interest, Loan recived from Arjun Gupta(HUF) and salary received from M/s ICA International Private Limited. The same explanation was submitted before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) found discrepancy in the confirmation of Atul Mittal (HUF). He found that the loan re-payment was made to Mrs. Sunita Muittal on 25/02/2015, still the outstanding balance of Rs. 6,70,000/- was shown on 31/03/2015. He also noted that the interest income of Rs. 2,02,500/- to Mrs. Sunita Mittal was shown in the confirmation filed by Mr. HK Agrwal, but the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
