TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act'). Briefly stated the facts of this ground are that the assessee received unsecured loan, inter alia, of Rs. 3,50,000 from U.S.Chawla HUF. On being called upon to furnish evidence about the genuineness of the transactions, the assessee placed on record certain details of U.S.Chawla HUF such as, return of income, bank statement . The Assessing Officer observed that the creditor has a meager income of Rs. 1,48,080 from commission and it was not possible to advance loan of Rs. 3,50,000 to the assessee. It was explained on behalf of the assessee that U.S.Chawla HUF received repayment of loan of Rs. 2,50,000 from Amrit Chawla on 28.10.2005 and the same amount was transferred to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....available. As regards the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000, it is seen that U.S.Chawla HUF received an amount of Rs. 1.08 lakh from Monarch as commission, which was offered for taxation. It is from such amount that the loan of Rs. 1 lakh was advanced to the assessee. In our considered opinion, the assessee has fully discharged the onus cast upon it to prove the genuineness of the loan transaction of Rs. 3.50 lakh from U.S.Chawla HUF. The impugned order on this issue is overturned and the assessee's contention is accepted. 4. First ground of the Revenue's appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 15,15,000 on account of advances appearing in the balance sheet. The facts apropos this ground are that the assessee claimed advances re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount of advance is taxed in this year and the sales are taken as receipt in the subsequent year, it would amount to double taxation of income. Apart from that it is relevant to note that the advances were received by cheque and the addresses of persons who gave the advances were duly supplied at the assessment stage. The Assessing Officer did not find any infirmity in such details furnished by the assessee. We, therefore, uphold the deletion of addition of Rs. 15.15 lakh. This ground is not allowed. 7. The only other effective ground is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 19,84,000 on account of loans taken from various parties. The assessee showed outstanding loans of Rs. 5.84 lakh from Smt. Amrit Chawla, Rs. 7.50 lakh from Karam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee by way of proper receipt. In view of these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was successful in discharging the onus cast upon it to prove the genuineness of the loan received from Mrs.Amrit Chawla. The impugned order is, therefore, upheld on this issue. 9. The other two disputed loans are - Rs. 7,50,000 received by the assessee from Karamjyot Singh (minor) and Rs. 6,50,000 received from Sarabjyot Singh (minor). The Assessing Officer observed that Karamjyot Singh's (minor) bank account depicted the receipts of Rs. 2,50,000 from Palinder Singh Chawla, grandmother, as gift on 19.10.2005, which was transferred to the assessee-firm. A sum of Rs. 1,40,000 was received from one Shri Jai on 14.12.2005 which wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evant material on record, we find that the addition u/s 68 was made by the Assessing Officer on account of these two alleged loans received from two minors. The learned CIT(A) chose to delete the addition by observing that the gifts received by these two minors were not questioned by the Department and no addition was made in their hands. He further observed that as long as the gifts were not treated as bogus, the application of the gifts by way of giving loans cannot be questioned. We are unable to accept the line of reasoning adopted by the learned CIT(A). It is an admitted fact that both the creditors, namely, Karamjyot Singh and Sarabjyot Singh were minors. In that view of the matter there was no question of filing their separate return....