9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition u/s. 68 of Rs. 1,58,47,780/- out of unsecured loans in the assessment order passed u/s. 144 dated 26/03/2013 to Rs. 27,00,000/- as source of loan remained unsubstantiated therefore creditworthiness remained unproved? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition u/s. 69 of Rs. 1,31,95,563/- in respect of advances, though the bank statements reflected the entries of the advances received but ignoring the fact that assessee could not furnish the confirmations from the parties and other documents in support and thereby, genuineness of the transactions remain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 195 Lacs 4. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted additional evidences which were subjected to remand proceedings. After considering assessee's submissions and in the light of remand report, Ld. CIT(A) deleted all the additions except addition of Rs. 27 Lacs as made by Ld. AO u/s. 68. The said adjudication has given rise to cross appeals before us. The revenue has challenged the deletion of addition made u/s. 68, 69 & 69B whereas the assessee is aggrieved by part confirmation of addition u/s. 68. 5. The issue-wise factual matrix as well as our adjudication would be as given in succeeding paragraphs. 6. Unsecured Loans u/s. 68. 6.1. The assessee obtained unsecured loans aggregating to Rs. 158.47 Lac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings. It is fact that the assessee has discharged the primary onus as required u/s. 68. Therefore, the additions have rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and no interference is required to that extent. 6.6. So far as the remaining additions of Rs. 27 Lacs are concerned, we find that the assessee has merely filed confirmations and no other documents have been filed by the assessee in support of the transactions. The Ld. AR has submitted that these loans were procured from the market as per the requirement. However, the onus to prove the genuineness of the same is on the assessee. Therefore, with respect to these 11 parties, we remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to file requisite documenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 195 Lacs was added u/s. 69B. The assessee denied having paid any cash and assailed the additions made by Ld. AO merely on the basis of loose paper found from a third party. The assessee submitted that no addition could be made without cross-examination and no addition could be made merely on the basis of loose paper as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in V.C. Shukla AIR 1998 SCC 410. 8.2. The Ld. CIT(A) concurred that the person making the allegations had to prove the same. The onus was on AO to supply to impounded documents to the assessee along with an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Sanjay Sonawane. In fact, no statement was recorded from Shri Sanjay Sonawane and therefore the additions were unsustainable in terms of the decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
