TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of RSA Marketing did not reflect any cash deposits immediately before issuing cheques to the Assessee. She has further noted that Assessee has discharged the onus of proving the identity and capacity of the creditor and also the genuineness of loan transaction. Before us, Revenue has not brought any material on record to controvert the findings of ld. CIT(A). No reason to interfere with the order of ld.CIT(A) and thus this ground of Revenue is dismissed. - SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Shri Pradip Kumar Majumdar Sr. D.R. Respondent by : Anil Kshatriya, A.R. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. This appeal filed by the Revenue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rketing makes deposits which in turn are routed to Assessee s account. A.O noted that Assessee did not explain the source of such loan and that the return of income of RSA Marketing showed total income of Rs. 1,03,619/-. He accordingly concluded that RSA Marketing did not have the capacity to advance the loan to the Assessee and accordingly made addition of Rs. 15,03,432/- u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition by holding as under:- 5.4.1 The action of the AO of adding Rs.15,03,432/- u/s 68 of the Act does not seem to be correct in view of the following facts. (i) First of all, M/s RSA Marketing is a concern of the same appellant group and it is a re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducted tax on the interest paid to M/s RSA Marketing on the loans received establishing the genuineness of transactions. (vi) As far as the creditor M/s RSA Marketing is concerned, during appellate proceedings, appellant has not submitted any new additional evidences and all the documents related to this creditor were already furnished before the AO during ^assessment proceedings. Therefore, there were no fresh evidences which were required to be forwarded to the AO for remand report. Still the comments given by the AO in the remand report have been considered. Nothing new has been stated by the A.O in the remand report. The AO has relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition made by the AO of Rs.15,03,432/- u/s 68 of the Act cannot be sustained and the same is hereby deleted. This ground is allowed. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, ld. D.R. supported the order of A.O. On the other hand ld. A.R. reiterated the submissions made before A.O and ld. CIT(A) and submitted that Assessee has discharged the onus of proving the identity and capacity of the creditor. He thus supported the order of ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to addition u/s. 68 of the Act. We find that ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
