TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 536
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & Co., and deriving income by way of share of profit from the aforesaid firms and interest. The assessee filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2006-07 on 15-02-2007 declaring total income of Rs. 43,78,465/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 3-12-2008 and the total income was determined at Rs. 39,82,30,180/-. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer the matter was carried before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who vide order dated 5-8-2009 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of CIT (A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised various grounds of appeal which were later on concised and the concise gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....R. Tribunal had adjourned the case to 10-7-2015 subject to the payment of Rs. 1,000/- by the assessee to the Department and it was further ordered by the Bench that the adjournment granted on 17-3-2015 would be the last adjournment. Ld. D. R. therefore, submitted that since none has appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the fact that in the last hearing it was stated to be last adjournment, the appeal be decided on the basis of submissions of Revenue and no adjournment be granted. Thereafter the Bench enquired from the Ld. D.R. about the status of payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- that was imposed on assessee by the Bench on previous occasion to which Ld. D.R. submitted that she was not aware as to whether the assessee has paid the cost ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see has failed to establish the identity of the creditors' and that the creditworthiness of the loan givers were unverifiable and doubtful. He accordingly concluded that assessee has failed to prove to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer the requirements stipulated in section 68 of the Income tax Act and accordingly made addition of Rs. 32,32,05,409/-. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer the assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT (A) who deleted the addition by holding as under:- "3. I have considered the facts and the submissions. I agree with the appellant's view. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rohini Builders reported at 256 ITR 360, held as under: "Cash credit - assessee furnish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for goods and of M/s. M. Kantilal Exports in which the assessee is a partner. On 31-03-2006, the entry for transfer of Rs. 12,22,83,985/- was passed in the books of M/s. M. Kantilal Exports by debiting account of M/s. Ankur Diamond N.V. and crediting account of Shri Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Kheni. Thus, it is only a book entry and fully explained. The entry in respect of Megh Mayur Reality Pvt. Ltd., is from sale of land, in respect of which, the assessee has filed details. In view of the facts, and the case laws discussed above, in my view, the loans cannot be treated as bogus. Accordingly, the additions are deleted." 8. Before us the Ld. D.R. pointed to the various observations of A.O. and supported the order of A.O. and further submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view that the conduct of the assessee whereby he is certifying and stating about filing all the documents but in fact not filing all the papers, not appearing before the Tribunal and seeking repeated adjournments, not filing of evidence of payment of cost that was levied by the Tribunal shows the conduct of the assessee which is not expected of him and his apathy towards judicial proceedings. 10. On the merits of the case, we find that CIT (A) while deleting the addition in respect of the addition made on account of loan from Ankur Diamond has noted that Ankur Diamond is a creditor for goods of M. Kantilal & Co., of which assessee is a partner and that the amount of credit is fully explained and is only a book entry. However before us n....