2015 (4) TMI 826

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....questions of law; (A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition made under Section 68 of the Act as also interest eligibly paid on the said loans? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has correctly appreciated in records while deleting the aforesaid addition made under Section 68 of the Act? (C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in ignoring the fact that there are cash deposits in the bank account of the depositor before the issue of cheques for unsecured loans and in such a suspicious situation, the genuineness of the loan transaction comes under question, and, therefore, mere filing of confirmation and copy of return of income of depositors does not mean that onus has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spect to the aforesaid seven depositors and, therefore, made the addition under Section 68 of the Act i.e. Rs. 33,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer therefore disallowed the interest paid to the aforesaid seven persons i.e. Rs. 1,87,763/-. (2.3) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assessing Officer in making the addition of unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Act i.e. Rs. 33,50,000/- and disallowance of interest paid to various depositors i.e. Rs. 1,87,763/-, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) allowed the said appeal preferred by the assessee and deleted the addition of unsecured loans made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act and also deleted the di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessing Officer doubted the genuineness of the transactions and / or creditworthiness of the depositors and despite sufficient opportunities given to the assessee, the assessee did not produce those depositors whose identity and genuineness was doubted by the Assessing Officer. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the addition under Section 68 of the Act. It is submitted that therefore both the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned ITAT have materially erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act and also deleting the disallowance of interest paid to various depositors. (4.0) We have heard Shri Manish Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-revenue a....