9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er u/s 68 of the Act on account of fresh unsecured loan; and (ii) The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of low withdrawal. 3. The grievances of the Revenue is also two-fold: i) the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in restricting the addition of Rs. 3,19,32,924/- to Rs. 95,00,516/ on account of unexplained loans ignoring the findings of the AO that an amount of Rs. 3,17,94,429/- has been credited in the books of accounts during the year under consideration in the garb of unsecured loans of which assessee could not prove the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness. ii) the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in restricting the addition of Rs. 2,13,827/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of low withd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either on one pretext or the other and the interest paid to some of the persons not shown/debited in the P&L account by the assessee in respect of unsecured loans received by the assessee during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The AO ultimately held that a major part of the loans were non genuine and their creditworthiness have also not been proved. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 3,19,32,924/- was added in the income of the assessee. The AO further added Rs 2,13,827/- on account of low withdrawal. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 9. After considering the facts and circumstances and evidences produced before him, the ld. CIT(A) came to the conclusion which is as under: "I have co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed u/s 68 of the I T Act. 11. We have heard the submissions of the ld DR and have carefully perused the materials on record. We find that the assessee, during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), filed several evidences in support of his claim which the CIT(A) forwarded to the AO for his comment. The CIT(A),on the basis of remand report and assessee's rejoinder/explanation, ultimately held that major portion of loan amounting to Rs 2,24,32,408/- out of Rs 3,19,32,914/-, pertained to previous years and not the impugned assessment year. The CIT(A) recorded a finding of fact that only an amount of Rs 95,00,516/- pertained to fresh loans taken during the year and confirmed the same on account of absence of satisfactory establishment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
