TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the facts as available and the position of law no interference in the impugned order is warranted. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A No. 8280/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 22-10-2021 - SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee, wherein the correctness of the order dated 22.03.2019 of CIT(Appeals), New Delhi pertaining to 2015-16 assessment year is assailed. 2. At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over. In the next round also the assessee remained unrepresented. A perusal of the record shows that on each of the dates the appeal came up for he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the evidences filed ultimately deleted the addition. Thus, the addition of ₹ 29 lakhs, it was submitted considering the facts had to be confirmed as only general arguments were raised and no supporting facts for deleting the addition could be filed. The addition it was his prayer on facts may be confirmed on merits. Relying upon the case law, as canvassed by the assessee extracted in the submissions recorded by the CIT(Appeals) it was his submission that only identity of the party stood proved. The creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction consistently could not be proved by the assessee. Referring to the impugned order it was his submission that fresh evidences relying upon Rule 46A of the IT Rules as desired by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough the above submission, it is observed that there is no additional ground of appeal but just an elaboration of the ground of appeal taken earlier with regard to the addition of ₹ 39,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The appellant relied upon the various case laws to further substantiate its arguments towards grounds of appeal, especially towards ground no. 2. Since no additional ground or new ground has been preferred, this submission is considered while deciding the issue involved. 4.3 The appellant vide letter dated 27.02.2019 submitted additional evidence as per Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules as follows: Most respectfully it is submitted that the assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) by the Ld. AO Ward 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kiran Sales P. Ltd. which he received back on 26.05.2015 as per the statement. Hence it is submittd that this transaction of advance given by Sh. Suraj Pal Bhatia is satisfactory. 4.5 The appellant was provided a copy of the report of AO and it was submitted by the appellant vide letter dated 14.03.2019 that: - With respect to remand report (copy enclosed) submit vide letter F.No.ITO-W-14(3)/Report/2018-19/760 dated 27.02.2019 with you by the Ld. Assessing Officer of Ward 14(3). The Ld. AO has accepted the transaction of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakh Only) as satisfactory loan from Sh. Suraj Pal Bhatia in the herein above mentioned appeal. Thereby we pray that the demand of ₹ 10,00,000/- may be deleted. 7. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this additional evidence is considered and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, considering the evidence filed and the report of the AO, the source of funds received from Mr. Suraj Pal Bhatia was found genuine and his capacity is also substantiate, therefore, this addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- is not warranted and directed to be deleted. 5.4 With regard to the addition of ₹ 29,00,000/- for the loan received from Sh. Balaji Timber and Plywood aka M/s Sai Kripa, it is seen that genuineness and correctness of transaction and their creditworthiness is not duly explained and hence this addition was made. 5.5 It is contended by the appellant, as reproduced above, that payments have been received through bankin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through banking channels, that cannot be considered sufficient to prove the creditworthiness or genuineness of transaction. The appellant has neither provided the source of the lender or the source of source, which is envisaged as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act. No confirmation or any evidence has been provided. 5.8 It is also observed that no interest in these loans have been given by the appellant. Any prudent person, not known or related to the appellant will not lend his hard earn money, without any consideration of interest. Further, it will not abstain from giving confirmation regarding having given such money to the appellant. 5.9 Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and in law, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
