TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loan creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made this addition. As assessee explained the loan from Kumar Nagendra is explained by the assessee by filing a copy of account and bank statement of the party but the same was ignored by the authorities. Except this explanation the assessee has not brought anything on record to prove the identity of the loan creditors, creditworthiness of the loan creditor and genuineness of the transaction Since the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence in respect of the unsecured loan from Munna Kumar, we find that the assessee failed to discharge its primary onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditor as well as genuinene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of unsecured loan of Rs. 40,00.000.00 in the name of Kumar Nagendra merely on the basis of presumption and surmises although no defect / discrepancies were found with respect to the details furnished in this respect. 2. Because, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in making addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 under the head of unsecured loan of Rs. 30,00.000.00 in the name of Munna Kumar merely on the basis of presumption and surmises although no defect / discrepancies were found with respect to the details furnished in this respect. 3. Because, the order is bad both on facts and in law and is not maintainable. 4. Because, the assessee craves leave to put forward further grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was deleted by the CIT(A) on the ground that this is nothing but loan taken from Munna Kumar and inadvertently shown in the balance-sheet in the name of Kumar Nagendra. Thus the learned DR has submitted that when the assessee has failed to discharge its onus during the assessment proceedings as well as before the CIT(A) then this addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is justified. 4.1 The assessee has stated in the statement of fact as under:- 1.3 That, the assessee has got its books of accounts audited U/s 44A B of the I.T. Act, 1961 and has obtained the report well within the prescribed time. A copy of the said report has been furnished with the return of total Income. There is no adverse comment i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loan is that its account are audited under section 44AB of the Act and Audit Report was filed alongwith the return of income. The assessee further explained that the loan of Rs. 40 Lac from Kumar Nagendra is explained by the assessee by filing a copy of account and bank statement of the party but the same was ignored by the authorities. Except this explanation the assessee has not brought anything on record to prove the identity of the loan creditors, creditworthiness of the loan creditor and genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) has considered this issue in para 4 and 5 as under:- 4. During the course of appellate proceedings, it was submitted that the loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- in the name of Shri Munna Kumar was wrongly typed as S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to have been received through DD, the copy of account has not been confirmed by the creditor. The bank statement of Kumar Nagendra maintained with Union Bank of India has been enclosed as per page-53 of paperbook, which show cash deposits of Rs. 5,07,815/-, Rs. 6,47,200/-, Rs. 3,38,590/-, Rs. 3,71,120/-, Rs. 7,00,000/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 6,44,830/- on 28.01.2013, 29.01.2013, 04.02.2013, 06.02.2013, 01.03.2013, 07.03.2013 and 11.03.2013 immediately before the issue of Draft favoring U Toll Corporation, the appellant. It is also important to mention here that before the deposit of cash there was 0 brought forward balance in this account. The copy of return of income or confirmation of this creditor has also not been filed. Thus it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t inadvertently this amount has been shown in the balance sheet in the name of Kumar Nagendra instead of in the name of Munna Kumar which is recorded in the ledger. Since the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence in respect of the unsecured loan of Rs. 30 Lac from Munna Kumar, we find that the assessee failed to discharge its primary onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditor as well as genuineness of the transaction. As regards the unsecured loan of Rs. 40 Lac from Kumar Nagendra is concerned, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has recorded this fact from the bank statement that a cash was deposited immediately prior to issuing of D.D. in favour of the assessee. Merely filing the bank stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
