TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 2142/Ahd/2009 2. The effective grounds of Revenue's appeal are as under: "i) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.34,35,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit in the capital account, without considering the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings as well as remand proceedings. ii) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition as in Ground no.1 in violation of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962 and relying upon the submission of the assessee dated 11.12.2006 which was never filed before the Assessing Officer. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....9.2004 Rs.1,00,000 15.9.2004 Rs.1,00,000 Total Rs.5,50,000 The ld. A.O. did not find any corresponding cash withdrawal from the bank account of the appellant. The ld. A.O. finally held that for these cash creditors as well as capital introduced in cash, the appellant had not proved identity of the payer, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the payer. He also relied on following decisions: (i) CIT vs. R.S.Tathod [212 ITR 390 (Raj.)], Roshan D. Hatti Vs. CIT [107 ITR 938], Kalekhan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [50 ITR 1 (S.C.)] - Burden of prove. (ii) Shankar Industries vs. CIT [HO ITR 689 (Cal)], CIT vs. Baishnab Charan Mohantry [212 ITR 199 (Ori.)] - How to prove. (iii) CIT vs. Precision Finance (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ized the reasons for addition and arguments given by the appellant on page nos.5 to 8. After considering the assessee's reply, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in paragraph no.8.2, which is reproduced as under: "8.2 The addition of Rs.34.35 lakhs u/s.68 of the Act made by the A.O. is on the ground that the income tax details/PAN of the creditor Seemaben was not on record. These have been filed and her PAN furnished. The bank details/confirmation/copy of account, address had been furnished already and so its addition, without bringing on record any contrary evidence, is not sustainable. Similarly, the addition of Rs.18 lakh and of Rs.6.35 lakh is based on the speculation about the availability of cash in capital account of M/s. Net....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Nakhava, [2012] (Guj.) and argued that the appellant had discharged her burden u/s. 68 of the IT Act. Thereafter, also the evidence furnished to the A.O. and remand report also has been called for from the ld. A.O. and after considering the reply of the assessee and remand report, the ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant. Therefore, he prayed to confirm the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have gone through the order of the authorities below and paper book submitted by the assessee. The appellant had filed confirmation report before the A.O. during the course of assessment proceeding as evident from the remand report. The CIT(A) also given fresh opportunity to the A.O. which has been availed by the A.O. The appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entire previous year. To that extent, the contentions of the appellant are acceptable. The interest debited to P&L Account was paid entirely in respect of bank loans utilized for business. Hence its disallowance was not sustainable in view of the judicial decisions reported in 73 TTJ 62 (Ahd). The disallowance is deleted and related ground of appeal is allowed. 9. Now the Revenue is before us. Ld. Sr. D.R. contended that the appellant had not advanced loan in business expediency and relied upon the S.A. Builders Case as held by the ld. CIT(A). From the side of the assessee, ld. Counsel relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and also drawn our attention at page no.1 of paper book and claimed that the assessee has interest free fund in form o....