TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of unsecured loans of following amounts: "i) Rs. 3,00,000/- from Smt. Rinku Poddar, ii) Rs.2,50,000/- from Smt. Shashi Devi Poddar and iii) Rs. 49,000/- from Shri Kanhai Lal Poddar For this, assessee has raised following three grounds: "1. FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol acted lawfully in upholding the impugned additions of Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 49,000/- which were the amount of loans received from Srnt. Rinku Poddar, Shashi Devi Poddar and Kanhaiya Lal Poddar respectively made by the Ld. Income tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Asansol speciously treating them as allegedly unexplained cash credits within the province of s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without adducing any adverse evidence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Cards. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has taken unsecured loans from Smt. Rinku Poddar amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/-, Smt. Shashi Devi Poddar Rs. 2,50,000/- and Kanhai Lal Poddar amounting to Rs. 49,000/-. The AO required the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions in respect to these cash creditors. The AO also issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the act to these cash creditors and asked to furnish the following details: "i) Identity Proof bearing signature, ii) Whether any loan was paid to the above person, if yes, then furnish the details of loan paid i.e. year in which the loan was given, mode and date of payment. iii) Details of fresh loan given and lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to assessee's account. The AO required her to explain the source of this deposit. For that purpose, the AO required the assessee to produce Smt. Rinku Poddar and she was finally produced before the AO on 09.12.2009 and statement was recorded. There were certain inconsistencies in the statement like she denied giving any loan to Shri Manoj Kumar Poddar, the assessee and moreover, she admitted that there is no big amount deposited in her account. In view of these inconsistencies and the fact that this amount of Rs. 300000/- was deposited on the very same date and issued cheque to assessee immediately for which there was no source to explain this credit entry, hence , the AO treated this amount as unexplained because the source of this deposit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0.2006 and on that very same day this amount was given as loan to the assessee i.e. her husband. Apart from this amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- there are small entries varies from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- in the bank account and there was never a balance of more than Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 30,000/- in this bank account. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the assessee is unable to explain this transaction. Hence, I confirm the orders of the lower authorities and the addition is confirmed. 7. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- received from Smt. Shashi Devi Poddar. The AO noticed that the second cash creditor Smt. Shash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l before Tribunal. 9. I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before me, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from other evidence stated that this amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- is a deposit out of cash in hand with Shashi Devi Poddar. I have gone through the entire paper book consisting of pages 1 to 78 and noticed that assessee has produced before the AO various documents like Income Tax Returns for AY 2005-06 to 2007-08 along with computation of income, bank statement, copy of PAN card, statement of affairs, which are now available in this paper book. Also Shashi Devi Poddar is sole proprietor of M/s. Sakambari Sales Agency, Barakar and the I. T. return for AY 2005-06 to 2007-08 have been filed s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd copy of demand draft by which this amount was advanced. But the AO has not accepted these documents as genuine and loan was treated as unexplained. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who observed that the confirmation of loan is not genuine and accordingly, the AO is right in holding that the loan is unproved one. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 11. I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. I find that this is a merely small amount of Rs. 49,000/- advanced out of current year's income. The current year's income of the loan creditor is about Rs. 1,10,250/-, which is sufficient to meet this loan amount. Even otherwise, the loan was advanced on 23.12.2006 alm....