9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax Act, 1961, in short 'the Act'. 2. The Revenue's sole substantive ground in its appeal challenges the CIT(A) order restricting section 68 addition of unexplained cash credit of Rs.39,79,773/- to Rs.15,33,376/- by granting relief of Rs.24,26,370/-. It prays for restoration of the entire addition amount. The assessee's cross appeal raises three substantive ground. The first one assails the remaining addition amount of Rs.15,33,376/-. Its remaining two grounds seek to delete interest disallowances of Rs.8,82,025/- in respect of investments made for machinery purchases and Rs.1.6 lac relating to amounts given to M/s. Heritage Board Pvt. Ltd. and the one outstanding qua share transactions with M/s. Amay Associates. 3. Both parties reite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin very short span of time of 2-3 days prior to assessee's transactions. He accordingly added this entire sum of Rs.39,79,773/- as assessee's unexplained credits u/s.68 of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal. The CIT(A) has partly accepted its contentions as under: "3.2.1 During the appellate proceedings, the AO was asked to submit the remand report after examining all the lenders regarding the source of advance to the appellant. The AO has submitted the remand report vide letter dt 26-2-2010. Copy of this remand report was given to the appellant for his comments. The remand report submitted by the AO and his comments in respect of 15 lenders is as under :- No. Name of the Depositor (S/Shri) Amt Involved Rs. Summons issued u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded nor furnished any written submission. 9 Usha P Agarwal 2,01,249 Neither attended nor furnished any written submission. 10 Indrakurnar D Agarwal 3,78,899' Summons issued and served by Speed Post. However the same was unserved and returned to this office on 19-2-10 with remark of Postal Deptt that 'Not known'. 11 Ratnadevi K Agarwal 2,16,964 The assessee filed written submission in the form of ledger account and bank statement but failed to attend on the date of hearing 12 Hansaben Rathod 3,83,578 Neither attended nor furnished any written submission. 13 Jitendra S. Mali 3,79,663 Summons issued and served by Speed Post. However the same was unserved and returned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ither identity is proved nor the creditworthiness is proved, hence the addition of Rs. 1,62,501/- in respect of Niranjan D Agarwal is confirmed. 4.2.2 With respect to Linaben N Shah the remarks of the AO in the assessment order are that the income is only Rs. 87,322/-which is very small and does not prove the creditworthiness. She has deposited cash of Rs.1,50,000/- on 29-4-2005 and Rs.-1,80,000/- on 5-5-2005, the summons also returned unserved with remarks 'not known'. This shows neither identity nor creditworthiness is proved hence the loan in respect of Linaben Shah is confirmed. 4.2.3 With respect to Shri Indrakumar Agarwal the Postal Department returned the summons with remarks 'Not known'. In the assessment order, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mons were served but theses parties have neither attended nor furnished any submission , hence these loans cannot be added back to the total income and these loans are deleted. 4.4 in view of the above, loan of Shri Niranjan Agarwal Rs.1,62,501/, Lilaben Shah Rs.6,32,313/-, Indrakumar Agarwal Rs.3,78,899/-, Jitendra Mali Rs.3,79,663/- are confirmed and balance are deleted. This ground of appeal is therefore partly allowed." 5. We have heard both sides and gone through the case file. The CIT(A) has confirmed the Assessing Officer's action of adding unsecured loans in case of four parties wherein letter issued stood returned with remarks "not known". He accepts the assessee's explanation even in cases where the letters have been served but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Revenue's sole substantive ground in its appeal fails and assessee's first ground is accepted. Revenue's appeal ITA 2917/Ahd/2010 is dismissed. 6. This leaves us with the assessee's two remaining grounds challenging disallowance of interest of Rs.8,82,025/- and Rs.1,60,000/- (supra). It submits that the former sum of interest may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for examining pro rata interest component as related to the first issue of unsecured loans; if any. The Revenue does not object to the same very seriously. We accept assessee's prayer and remit its second ground back to the Assessing Officer for examining this pro rata as per law. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 7. The assessee does not pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
