TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ja had nowhere in the statement admitted to having given any accommodation entry to the assessee, (iii) even if Shri Ahuja maintained parallel books, it is of no concern to the assessee who had reflected the loan transactions in his books of accounts, (iv) if it is presumed that Rs.35 lacs given to the assessee by Ahuja group is an accommodation entry and out of this Rs.25 lacs has been repaid, there is no sense of making an addition of an entry amounting to Rs.61,50,000/-, which is Rs.1.50 lacs more than the amount of loan given and repaid. Though the onus shifted to the AO, he failed to disprove the contentions of the assessee. Therefore, in view of the above factual scenario and position of law, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer (AO) recorded reasons for reopening the assessment (Ref. page 1 to 5 of the assessment order) and then issued and served notice u/s 148 to the assessee. The AO received information from the DDIT that during the course of search and seizure action carried out by the department in Ahuja group and their associate concerns on 25.06.2015, the statement of Shri Jagdish Bhagwandas Ahuja, Director and Promoter of M/s Ahuja group was recorded on 28.06.2015 and 07.07.2015. In the said statement Shri Ahuja had admitted the transactions which were found in loose papers and pen drives had not been entered in the regular books of accounts. As per the report of the DDIT, Shri Ahuja had transactions with Shri Sarvajit D. Patel (the assessee) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Patel from the account of ahuja properties and associates 2500000 24.11.2008 Dr Entry A/c Dilip bipin patel cheque reed back fvg P L 23.5L from Dilip Patel HUF, 1.5L from Sarvajeet D. Patel 2500000 Total 3500000 2500000 8. Out of the above amount of Rs.2500000/-, Rs.150000/- is cash given to Shri Sarvajit D. Patel, which is received back in the form of accommodation entry in the Ahuja Group, and to protect the interest of revenue, this cash receipt should be added in the hands of Sar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t merely on surmises and presumptions and without any direct nexus, the view is taken against the assessee, (v) there is no entry before the said noting indicating payment of cash loan by the assessee and in absence of cash loan being given by the assessee, question of receipt of loan interest is merely a presumption. However, the AO was not convinced with the above explanation of the assessee for the reason that as per the statement given by Shri Jagdish Bhagwandas Ahuja, Director/Promoter of Ahuja group, cash was paid to the assessee against cheque which were recorded in the parallel books of accounts and the assessee had received cash of Rs.26,50,000/- and that assessee had made unexplained expenditure from the cash received from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of accommodation entry; if that be the case, there would be cheque receipt of Rs.1.50 lacs in the Ahuja group but neither the DDIT nor the AO has brought out this fact, if it is true. Observing as above the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that instead of investigating and trying to prove, the AO has completely distorted the facts and made an addition of Rs.61,50,000/- merely on the basis of presumptions and wrong assumptions. Relying on the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC), wherein it is held that conclusion as a result of suspicion, surmises and conjectures cannot take place of proof, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.61,50,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any accommodation entry to the assessee, (iii) even if Shri Ahuja maintained parallel books, it is of no concern to the assessee who had reflected the loan transactions in his books of accounts, (iv) if it is presumed that Rs.35 lacs given to the assessee by Ahuja group is an accommodation entry and out of this Rs.25 lacs has been repaid, there is no sense of making an addition of an entry amounting to Rs.61,50,000/-, which is Rs.1.50 lacs more than the amount of loan given and repaid. Though the onus shifted to the AO, he failed to disprove the contentions of the assessee. Therefore, in view of the above factual scenario and position of law, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
