TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r is the same and the parties are also the same which can conveniently adjudicated by a single order. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee has proved the credit-worthiness of Subodh R. Nemlekar HUF, without appreciating that Subodh Nemlekar HUF does not have enough source to advance Rs. 15,00,000/- to the assessee? 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The Ld. Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne of Rs. 20,00,000/- from different parties. The genuineness and creditworthiness of the said loan was not proved, therefore, the loan to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- were added to the income of the assessee u/s.68 of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) deleted the addition to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-, therefore, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. 5. However, in cross appeal the assessee filed an appeal with regard to the deletion of Rs. 5,00,000/- which has been added by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Act and confirmed by the CIT(A) 6. The foundation of the Assessing Officer in connection with the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- is that the Assessing Officer verified the bank st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- appearing in the name of Subodh Nemlekar, HUF. It is wrong on the part of the Assessing Officer to mention in Para 6.1 that HUF failed to furnish various information whereas fact is altogether different. Appellant has furnished the copy of return of income, balance sheet and bank statement for AYrs 2003-04 and 2004-05. Further, it is seen that Ld. Assessing Officer has not properly appreciated the facts of the case as HUF has given loan to one Shri Bhushan Nemlekar in A.Y.2003-04 and 2004-05 of Rs. 15,00,000/- which were reflected in balance sheet. The bank statement reveals the entry on various dates. Mr. Bhushan Nemlekar has repaid Rs. 15,00,000/- to the HUF on 13.11.2009 and the same amount has been transfer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loan to such person. It is seen from the bank account of Abhudoya Cooperative Bank Ltd. that on 10.06.2009, Arvind Gandhi has deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- and thereafter on 12.06.2009 has given Rs. 2,00,000/- to the appellant without explaining actual source of income. Assessing Officer has rightly pointed out that source of income is very negligible, hence Arvind Gandhi could not lent such money to the appellant. It appears that cash has been given and cheque has been obtained in the name of Arvind Gandhi, hence the finding of the Assessing Officer is worth sustainable. Similarly, loan shown in the name of Dilip Gandhi is also not believable because as per his statement he was not fully knowing appellant and he met only in the office of his i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h parties. Therefore, finding of the Assessing Officer in respect of loan appearing in the name of Arvind Gandhi, Dilip Gandhi and Hiren Gandhi is sustained and thus an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is confirmed and addition in respect of loan appearing in the name of HUF of Rs. 15,00,000/- is found to be from known source, hence deleted." 7. On appraisal of the above mentioned findings we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- on the basis of this fact that the HUF has given loan to one Shri Bhushan Nemlekar in A.Y.2003-04 and 2004-05 of Rs. 15,00,000/- which were reflected in balance sheet. The bank statement also speaks about the entry on various dates. Mr. Bhushan Nemlekar has repaid Rs. 15,00,....