9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the AY 2013-14 on 27.07.2013 declaring total income of Rs.17,83,470/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has received unsecured loans from '8' persons as stated by the AO in Para No.4.5 of his assessment order amounting to Rs.1,17,90,000/-. The assessee was called upon to file necessary evidences including confirmations from loan creditors. In response, the assessee has filed details of loans taken from various parties and also furnished their name and address. The AO issued summons u/s.131 of the Act, to all persons and in response, they appeared with necessary evidences and statements were recorded u/s.131 of the Act. The AO after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loan to him. This is not acceptable. Even if Shri N Subramanian died in 2012, the retirement benefit papers etc are always with the family members and if not they could have easily got it from the bank from where he voluntarily retired in 2006. Moreover, claim that he got 55,00,000 lac in 2006 also do not commensurate with the post held at the time of retirement. However, it cannot be held that the family members did not get anything from Late Subramanian and out of their own savings and hence reasonable amount in respect of each member considering the facts of the each person has been taken into account while holding the amount of loan as explained and balance as unexplained as mentioned above. 4.5. From the above facts and circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of certain judicial precedents, rejected arguments of the assessee and sustained additions made towards unsecured loans taken from various parties on the ground that although, the legal heirs of late Mr.N.Subramanian, claims that his late father has made fixed deposits in bank out of VRs amounts received in the year 2006, is not proved, because, the source available for the legal heirs of Mr.N.Subramanian, out of his retirement benefits is only Rs.55 lakhs, whereas, the creditors' claims to have extended loans of Rs.1.10 Crs. Therefore, rejected the arguments of the assessee and sustained the additions made towards unsecured loans and consequential interest paid on said loans. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tend the loans. In this case, the assessee could not explain the loans with necessary evidences. Therefore, the AO has made additions and their orders should be upheld. 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The assessee has taken loans from '8' persons as stated by the AO in Para No.4.5 of his assessment order. The AO has accepted loan taken from Mr.N.Subramanian amounting to Rs.15 lakhs on the basis of evidences filed by the assessee including confirmations from the parties. In so far as remaining '7' persons, out of Rs.1,17,90,000/- loans, the AO has accepted Rs.38 lakhs as genuine and balance amount of Rs.79,90,000/- has been treated as unexplained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough cheque. The AO has accepted a sum of Rs.7 lakhs and balance amount of Rs.18 lakhs has been treated as unexplained credit. The assessee has furnished bank statement of Mr.NS.Poongodi, and from the above, we find that the creditor has availed FDR loan from Bank of Baroda, amounting to Rs.23,72,000/- on 28.02.2013 and the same has been credited to his bank account on 02.03.2013. He had transferred a sum of Rs.25 lakhs to assessee's account. From the above, it is very clear that the creditor has sufficient source of income to give loan to the assessee. Similarly, the assessee has taken a sum of Rs.25 lakhs loan from Mr.NS.Rajasekaran out of FDR loan availed from Karur Vysya Bank, amounting to Rs.24 lakhs. The loan proceeds credited to his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfactorily explained the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of loan creditors. The AO without appreciating the fact simply made additions to part of loan taken from creditors, even though, he has accepted the fact that the assessee has filed all evidences to prove identity of the creditors. It is a well settled principle of law by the decision of various courts, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) that once name and address of creditors are furnished to the AO, then, it for the AO to proceed in accordance with law to re-open the assessment of creditors, but sum received from creditors cannot be regarded as unexplained c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
