TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere cannot be any addition for bogus loan/accommodation given . If the loan given by X to Y is found bogus/accommodation, the department can make addition in the hands of Y but certainly not in the hands of X . In fact, Ld. DR also understood this basic point and that is why he simply supported the AO s order and left it for the Bench to take a call. As far as the source of cash-deposit in bank a/c, prior to giving loan, is concerned, Ld. AR has successfully demonstrated that the assessee made a withdrawal of enough amount from same bank a/c which was available for re-deposit. Thus, we need not go further to examine the genuineness or otherwise of the loan given by assessee, suffice it to say that the AO has wrongly made addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing an addition of Rs. 6,75,000/- and thereby assessing total income at Rs. 12,29,010/-. Aggrieved by action of AO, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) observed non-compliances of the notices of hearing fixed by him and therefore dismissed assessee s appeal confirming the addition made by AO. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 4. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that in the first-appeal before CIT(A), the assessee could not be make representation because it was conducted through faceless regime and the assessee was not aware of the notices of hearing issued by CIT(A). Normally in such cases, our practice is to remand case back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prop. of M/s U.B. Investment, for chanelizing money and providing bogus entries/accommodation to other parties. Ultimately, vide Para No. 7 of assessment-order, the AO made addition of Rs. 6,75,000/-, being the loan given by assessee, in assessee s hands. 6. Having explained this, Ld. AR firstly raised an important question. He submitted that in the present case the AO has made addition qua the loan given by assessee and not loan taken by assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the loan given by assessee is very genuine, but for the sake of academic discussion even if it is said to be bogus/accommodation then also it does not warrant any addition in assessee s hands. Ld. AR submitted that had this been a case of loan taken by assessee, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- on 16.03.2012 Rs. 25,000/- on 19.03.2012; therefore the assessee was left with more than enough cash for re-deposit of Rs. 2,25,000/- on 27.03.2012 29.03.2012. Hence, the assessee s claim that she was having unutilized cash-balance out of previous withdrawal is fully substantiated and verifiable from entries in Bank A/c itself. Ld. AR submitted that the AO has grossly erred in making an adverse observation in this regard. 8. With aforesaid submissions, Ld. AR prayed to delete the addition fully. 9. Per contra, Ld. DR dutifully supported the order of AO. However, Ld. DR also submitted that the entire facts are before the Bench and the Bench may take a judicious call in the matter. 10. We have considered rival submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
