TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2 of the assessee is allowed. Addition u/s 68 - undisclosed source - assessee filed affidavit relating deposit of Khem Chand Khatri HUF but considered Rs.1,00,000/- in name of Khem Chand Khatri (Ind.) and remaining not considered and ld. CIT(A) sustained addition - HELD THAT:- As in the case of Shweta Goyal [ 2021 (4) TMI 398 - ITAT JAIPUR] wherein the Bench has observed once the AO has examined the documents so produced by the assessee and recorded his satisfaction regarding the identity of the donors, the genuineness of the gifts and the source of such gifts, the assessee has discharged the necessary onus cast on her and no addition can be made in her hand - hence, the addition so made is deleted. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mehta Parikh Co.[ 1956 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the head note is Income Tax Income from undisclosed sources- assessment assessee s explanation based on accounts supported by affidavit, Accounts accepted as genuine and statements in affidavits not controverted- Finding based on no evidence- Inference from proved or admitted facts-If question of law Principle of interference from Income Tax Act- Indian Income Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business and notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2018 after recording reasons. In response to notice u/s 148 the assessee had declared revised return of income of Rs. 4,91,791/- During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to explaining source of such difference income shown in his revised ITR with documentary evidences. In this regard the assessee had produced relevant documents and details of Income from services a/c, e-banking to direct tax, NSDL PAN, Commercial Tax A/c, House rent receipts A/c, Agricultural Income (rent) A/c, Share and Commodities A/c, P L, Capital A/c Balance Sheet etc The submission of the assessee along with details and documents has been duly considered and Assessing Officer find that the assessee HUF suffered heavy loss from speculation business, for which payment of the heavy losses the assessee has shown excess income in his ITR from undisclosed sources. Therefore, the Assessing Officer accepted only original return of income and difference of Rs. 3,39,631/- (4,91.791-1,52,160) is added to the total income of the assessee from undisclosed source u/s 68 of the Act. Considering these facts of the case, I find that the appellant coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. CIT(A) 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee HUF suffered heavy loss from speculation business for which payment of the heavy losses the asessee had shown excess income in his ITR from undisclosed sources. Therefore, the Assessing Officer accepted only original return of income and difference of Rs.3,39,631/- (4,91,791 1,52,160) was added to the total income of the assessee from undisclosed sources u/s 68 of the Act which has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). In this case, it is noticed that the assessee had produced relevant documents and details of income from service a/c, e-banking to direct tax, NSDL PAN, Commercial Tax, House Rent Receipts A/c, Agricultural Income (Rent) A/c, Share and Commodities A/C, P L, Capital A/c Balance Sheet etc. The AO has considered the submissions of the assessee as well as documents filed by the asssessee but the AO did not controvert the submissions as to the addition made in the assessment order. The AO did not reject the books of account of the assessee. The assessee had filed complete details and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had shown the following entries as unsecured loan:- S. No. Name Amount of Loan 1 Raj Kumar Khatri Member of HUF 53,000/- 2 Nayan Khatri Member of HUF 50,000/- 3 Khem Chand Khatri 1,00,000/- 4 Khem Chand Khatri HUF(Karta Khem Chand Khatri 5,60,000/- Total 7,63,000/- The AO asked the assessee to prove the genuineness of this loan amounting to Rs. 7,63,000/- by furnishing Name of lender, address, PAN, Mode of payment, Affidavit/ confirmation etc. The AO mentioned that the assessee. did not file any affidavit/confirmation to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders. The AO further mentioned that the assessee was required to establish genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender as required in the sec. 68 of the Act, which he failed to do so. Out of total Unsecured loans of Rs. 19,64,7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has objected to the AO's action in disallowing unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- received in cash from Sh. Khem Chand Khatri (Individual). The Assessing Officer observed that Sh. Khem Chand Khatri died on 27.03.2017. In this regard the assessee had furnished all relevant details and documents. The AO mentioned that the assessee failed to do so and the explanation given by the assessee in this regard was not found satisfactory. The AO observed that the assessee failed to explain the source of cash of deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- in his saving bank account. Accordingly, the AO treated the same as unexplained income of the assessee and made the addition u/s. 69 of the Act. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant made written submissions through the AR. I find that in the instant case, the appellant has duly proves the source of the loan received from Sh. Khem Chand Khatri. He had retired from Post office around 12 years ago and received pension and had interest income from bank. The AR of the appellant submitted before me copy of ITR and capital a/c and balance sheet. I hold that the appellant has satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposited in sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identity of the donors, the genuineness of the gifts and the source of such gifts, the assessee has discharged the necessary onus cast on her and no addition can be made in her hand- hence, the addition so made is deleted. The ld. AR of the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mehta Parikh Co. vs CIT (1956 AIR 554, 1956 SCR 626 dated 10-05-1056) wherein the head note is Income Tax Income from undisclosed sources- assessment assessee s explanation based on accounts supported by affidavit, Accounts accepted as genuine and statements in affidavits not controverted- Finding based on no evidence- Inference from proved or admitted facts-If question of law Principle of interference from Income Tax Act- Indian Income Tax Act (XI of 1922, ss 62(3), 26A. The Bench taking into consideration the submissions of the assessee and the case laws cited above do not concur with the findings of the lower authorities in disallowing the addition so made amounting to Rs.7,63,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Thus Ground No. 3 of the assessee is allowed. 5.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
