9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uly confirmed that loans had been advanced to the appellant and as such, addition so sustained is invalid and untenable. 2. The Ld. AO failed to make a reasonable enquiry about creditworthiness of lenders and made addition u/s. 68 without application of mind and confirmed by CIT(A), Ghaziabad. 3. Out of Addition made by AO and further confirmed by CIT(A) of Rs. 570000/-, addition of Rs. 415000/- was completely wrong, since cash was deposited before Loan given date, was only Rs. 25000/- whereas Ld. AO considered the same as Rs. 415000/- 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal." 2. The only effective ground in this appeal is against the sustaining of addition of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact of cash deposits. He contended that the only cash deposited on the date of loan was Rs. 25,000/-. He further contended that merely because there were certain cash deposits which would not prove that the undisclosed income of the assessee company is routed through these persons without confronting the same from the said persons. 7. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. I have heard Ld. Authorized representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings, noticed that in the case of Smt. Seema Singhal, there was certain cash deposits on 02.04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. 7.2 Ground nos. 2 and 3: The appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 5,70,000/- u/s. 68 contending that observations made by AO on account of unexplained unsecured loan received from Smt. Seema Singhal (Rs. 1,50,000/-), M/s. S.K. Singhal (HuF) (Rs. 3,75,000/-), Smt. Shalika Singhal (Rs. 45,000/-). During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant disputed AO's observation of certain deposits in the bank accounts regarding which comments were called for from AO and the copy of remand report of AO was given to the appellant. However, considering all documents, it is found that appellant failed to substantiate the creditworthiness of persons lending the money. For example during the course of appellate proceedings appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated by the assessee before the authorities below that in the case of Smt. Seema Singhal, she has been withdrawing salary income and rental income to make the payment. In the case of M/s. S.K. Singhal (HUF), it was stated that lender had deposited only Rs. 10,000/- in cash and rest of sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- was credited through account payee cheque on 12.06.2014 and Rs. 30,000/- deposited in cash in the bank on 12.06.2014. Further, in the case of Smt. Shalika Singhal, it was stated that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was received as a professional income in cash which was deposited out of the professional income. It is seen that the authorities below have not commented and made any inquiry on this explanation of the assessee. I find that there is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
