TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 553
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n all aggregating to Rs. 3,55,000/- on the ground that the appellant failed to prove creditworthiness of the aforesaid parties without appreciating the fact that the appellant had discharged the onus cast upon it and hence, the addition made of Rs. 3,55,000/- is unjustified and may be deleted. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) failed to take into consideration the evidences filed before him and without verifying the same has made contrary observations in the order and hence, the addition confirmed of Rs. 3,55,000/- is unjustified and liable to be deleted. B. Addition of Cash deposited in ledger account of Shri Jaideep Kapadia - Rs. 40,54,400/- 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of sum of Rs. 40,54,400/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without any basis, unjustified and may be deleted. 7. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the source of cash deposits were duly supported by agreements for sale of plots / advance received on sale of plots, etc. and hence, without making any attempt to verify the same or calling for remand report and merely on his own suspicious and doubts, the addition confirmed is unjustified and liable to be deleted." 2. Ground no. 1 pertains to the addition of Rs. 3,55,000/- in aggregate, found credited in the books of the assessee. 3. The issue was raised by the AO, when he found that the following amounts are credited in the books in the following names: S.No. Name of the lender Amount 1 Shri Anandkumar Jaiprakash Sar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....di along with the letter of Talati, which would prove the genuiness of loan of Rs. 60,000/-. 7. The CIT(A), on considering the detailed reply of the assessee, found that the assessee had not furnished complete details, which could discharge the onus lay on the assessee. He also concluded that there is no person with the name of Ms. Sumangala Prabhakarrao Gungune existed with this PAN, even though the assessee furnished the evidence that the lady's maiden name was Ms. Asha Bhagvantrao Kherde, whose PAN details matched. The CIT(A), however, taking and considering the entire facts and circumstances, sustained the addition made by the AO u/s 68 at Rs. 3,55,000/-. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is now before the ITAT. 9. Before us, the AR s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... genuine & we sustain the addition made on these credits. 12. In the case of Ms Sumangala Prabhakarrao Gungune no details of family and income details were either filed before the revenue authorities or even before us. The AR has also not been able to substantiate as to how the creditor Ms. Sumangala Prabhakarrao Gungune alias Ms. Asha Bhagvantrao Kherde was able to save a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, from her teaching profession, which has been advanced as loan to the assessee. Same is the case with Shri Vasantrao Omkarraoji Kale, no details except for his cultivable land holding of 3.63 acres has been provided to substantiate his savings to lend a loan of Rs. 60,000/-. These vague details, in our opinion are not good enough reasons to treat th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uately explained, hence the addition made on this account was proper. He, therefore, sustained the addition of Rs. 40,54,400/- in the hands of the assessee. 17. The assessee is now before the ITAT. 18. Before us, the AR reiterated the submissions made before the revenue authorities and added that the land did not belong to the assessee or the director. It belonged to the Trust. The assessee, was only acting as the confirming party to the sale of plots belonging to the Trust and since the payments were collected by the director, who was depositing the same in assessee's bank account. His name was used, only to identify the nature of the payment. This aspect, the AR submitted, has not been looked into by the revenue authorities, who hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al agreement to undertake the sale of sub plots belonging to the trust, and why was the assessee company, through its director was still collecting payments on behalf of the trust, has not been looked into. The real motive and purpose has yet to be ascertained in the light of arguments of the AR. Why the sale and sale proceeds collected by Shri Jaideep Kapadia, and deposited in the company's bank account and how the company made payments to the trust has to be looked into, as a thread going through the beads. 21. In these circumstances, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO, with the direction, that the AO shall come to some definite conclusion after looking into the agreements between the Trust....