9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n certifying it partly, treating the unsecured loans of Rs. 45,00,000 as unexplained credits U/s 68, as in doing so he has completely disregarded the facts, informations/ documents produced before them and explanations provided by the assessee during the assessment and appeal proceedings. 2. That in making and confirming these additions the Ld. Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-6) have ignored the rulings of the various courts of the country and has gone on to make the additions on completely baseless and whimsical grounds, without even considering the information verifiable and traceable with the Department itself. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer and Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-6) have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer. However, the same was filed before Ld.CIT(A) by way of additional evidences. Ld.CIT(A) treated the transaction with Shri K.L.Arora as genuine and deleted the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- and rest of the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- in respect of Ms. Neha Madan and Rs. 25,00,000/- in respect of Shri R.N.Arora was confirmed. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by filing the evidences in support of its claim. Further, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities below ought to have appreciated and in the interest of principle of natural justice ought not to have disregarded the evidences filed by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents on this issue. 4. Ld.Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee had field certain additional evidences before Ld.CIT(A) related to impugned additions. These documents were supplied to the Assessing Officer for his comments and verification. Ld.CIT(A) out of three transactions found that one transaction was genuine of Rs. 8,00,000/- related to Shri K.L.Arora but the loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. Rs. 20,00,000/- received from Shri R.N.Arora and Ms. Neha Madan was found to be unexplained therefore, he made additions. Admittedly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness, the assessee company was asked to file the confirmations of all the unsecured loans raised during the financial year, along with ledger account, copy of return and bank statements of the lenders. In response the assessee company has submitted information in respect of parties mentioned below vide its letters dated 18.02.2013, 28.02.2013, & 06.03.2013: Table-I S.No. Name of lender party PAN No. & Address Amount (Rs.) Closing balance as on 31.03.2005 1. K.L.Arora ADJPA2623D 800000 800000 2. Neha Madan AEPPM7026L 2000000 2000000 3. R N Arora AAKPA5265H 2500000 2500000 4. Aruna malhan AHVPM7935L 86075 86075 5. Devi Dass Malhan AHVPM7951J 10931075 10931075 6. Malhan Builders AAAFM8130D 2007000 200700 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
