TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rule 46A. The assessee has pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that it was not given proper time by the AO to file the necessary documents and the same were filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) remanded the same to the file of the AO and also obtained remand report from the AO. In these circumstances, Ld. DR was asked to point out the violation of Rule 46A. Ld. DR could not make any cogent reply in this regard. Accordingly, we hold that the ground relating to violation of Rule 46A are not sustainable. Accordingly, we dismiss this ground. 3. Now we deal with the issue on merits. 4. Unexplained deposits Rs. 13,98,065/-. This comprises of: a) Surinder Kumar Rs. 9,98,065/- b) Prahlad Yadav Rs. 4,00,000/- Total Rs. 13,98,065/- 5. The assessee was asked by the AO to explain the following deposits in the assessee's bank account (i) Surinder Kumar Rs. 5,98,065/- and (ii) Parhlad Yadav Rs. 4,00,000/-. The assessee has explained before the AO that the total receipts from Surinder Kumar wer Rs. 9,98,065/-. The receipts were mostly by cheques and were in the nature of business transaction i.e. hire and purchase of vehicle. Payment of Rs. 5,98,065/- had been received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Thus, he deleted the addition of Rs. 4 lacs in this regard. Thus the entire addition of Rs. 13,98,065/- on the above account was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 9. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 10. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We note that assessee has explained in this regard that the above transaction are not loan transaction, but the above were regular business transaction of the assessee which was hire and purchase of vehicle. The payment was received from Sh. Surinder Kumar amounting to Rs. 5,98,065/- which was received in instalments against the hire purchase agreement, which was also placed on record. Further a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was deposited by Sh. Surinder Kumar as advance for purchase of vehicle. As the purchase did not materialize, the same was returned through account payee cheque. Similarly, in the case of Parhlad Yadav, the advance was received for purchase of vehicle amounting to Rs. 4 lacs. As the purchase did not materialize, the same was repaid later through account payee cheque. Furthermore, the above transactions were duly confirmed by the persons, their income tax returns and bank statements were als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur considered opinion, mere confirmation of transaction cannot be treated as sufficient proof of the transactions. Ld. CIT(A) has held that the AO should have taken remedial action by way of enquiry and addition, if suitable be made in the hands of the partners. We are not in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. The above amount is capital introduction in the firm. Hence, it is the onus of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the capital introduced in the firm. We find that the creditworthiness of the lenders / donor has not been properly examined. Hence, we remit this issue to the file of the AO. The AO shall examine the creditworthiness of the above said transactions afresh, after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 15. Unexplained deposits of Rs. 17,30,000/- In this regard, addition is with reference to the following depositors. i) BR Financiers Rs. 13,00,000/- ii) OM Parkash Rs. 60,000/- iii) Ram Devi Rs. 60,000/- iv) Ishwar Devi Rs. 1,00,000/- v) Sanjay Malhotra Rs. 1,50,000/- vi) Subhash Kumar Rs. 60,000/- Total Rs. 17,30,000/- BR FINANCIERS From the above parties the assessee has received f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orthiness of the transactions. 20. As regards receipt of Rs. 60,000/- from OM Parkash, Ld. CIT(A) noted that this person has given interest bearing deposits to the assessee and the balance are being carried forward from the past. The assessee also produced copy of assessment order wherein such deposits of OM Parkash was investigated and found genuine and no addition was made. Ld. CIT(A) further noted that the said person had sufficient land holdings and therefore, creditworthiness is explained. 21. We find that in light of the above said finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the opinion that the deposits is sufficiently explained and hence, we uphold the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. 22. As regards deposit of Smt. Ram Devi (Rs. 60,000); Smt. Ishwar Devi (Rs. 1,00,000/- and Sh. Subhas Kumar (Rs. 60,000). 23. Ld. CIT(A) observed that balance of these deposits have been carried forward from the past and in the past these depositors have been treated as genuine. Ld. CIT(A) observed that if AO has any doubt regarding the source of funds in the hands of the depositor, he can initiate inquiry in the hands of the depositor. Accordingly, he deleted the addition. 24. ....