9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in directing the addition of Rs.45,29,020/- to the taxable income of the Appellant under the head 'unsecured loan' under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 3. Before the ITAT, it was the second round of litigation. In the first round, the ITAT had remanded the matter to the AO with the certain specific directions as under: "...Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we reverse the finding of the CIT (A) and restore this matter to the file of the AO to verify the genuineness of the transaction. The AO is directed to verify whether the assessee has repaid this amount to all the persons stated in his accounts in various years by calling all the creditors. Therefore, the AO is direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts. The assessee failed to do so despite being given adequate opportunities. Since the assessee failed to comply with the direction of the Hon'ble ITAT, the AO had no other alternative but to consider the loans as unexplained and make addition accordingly. On the facts of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the AO. Hence, the addition of Rs.45,29,017/- on account of unsecured loans is confirmed." 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant seeks to contend that in terms of the direction issued by the ITAT, it is the AO who should have issued summons to the farmers in question to verify the facts. The direction issued by the ITAT in the first round was to the effect that the AO should verify whether the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able since in the present case it is plain that the Appellant did not comply with the terms of the remand order of the ITAT in the first round. 9. Lastly, Mr. Mohanty cites the decision dated 12th January 2009 of the Rajasthan High Court in ITA No.185 of 2008 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner v. M/s. Kewal Krishan). On a perusal of the said order, it again appears that it is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it was for the partners of a firm to explain the sources of the deposits and if they failed to discharge that onus, the addition could be made in the hands of the partners and not of the firm. In the present case, the facts are entirely different and therefore, the said decision does not help the Appellant. 10. The Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
