TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 870
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ''2.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that though the loan amount of Rs. 1,07,00,000/- had been sanctioned, only Rs. 66.21 lakhs had been disbursed till 31/3/2007 and hence the source of investment of Rs. 40.78 lakhs made in the financial year 2006-07 has not been proved. 2.2 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee himself had submitted that the source of investment to be the lean of Rs. 1,07,00,000/- and has claimed the above sum as secured loan in the balance sheet as on 31/3/2007. 2.3. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that if the existing loan amount of Rs. 49,03,162/- was dosed out of the initial disbursement, then the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ished copy of sanction letter dated 15.03.2007. The ld. Assessing Officer found from the loan sanction letter, the assessee alongwith three other applicants had borrowed loan and requested to produce the ownership details of property, approved plan and construction cost. On 29.12.2009, the ld. Authorised Representative produced assessee saving bank account in Karnataka Bank, Bangalore and explained that out of sanctioned amount, the bank has disbursed Rs. 66,21,768/- on 30.03.2007. The ld. Assessing Officer was suspicious as the assessee obtained loan from Standard Chartered Bank Rs. 1,07,00,000/- and disclosed in Balance Sheet but bank has disbursed Rs. 66,21,768/- in the previous year 2006- 2007. The ld. Assessing Officer wanted clarifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceedings and relied on the judicial decisions and expressed categorical findings that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus placed on him to substantiate the Addition and levied minimum penalty of Rs. 11,73,470/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Authorised Representative argued the grounds and reiterated the submissions with evidence placed in assessment and in quantum appeal and penalty proceedings. The ld. Authorised Representative further substantiated his arguments with written submissions referred at para 9 & 10 by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Prime facie, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order, the Revenue has assailed an appeal before Tribunal. 6. Before us, the ld. Departmental Representative argued that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty without considering the facts that out of Rs. 1,07,00,000/- sanctioned amount only Rs. 66,21,768/- lakhs was credited to the assessee bank account before 31.03.2007 and the assessee could not substantiate with the source of investment of Rs. 40,78,232/- though the assessee has disclosed in the Balance sheet Rs. 1,07,00,000/-. The fact that the assessee has a existing loan and was closed after initial disbursement by the Standard Chartered Bank. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the assessee has substantial evidence to support the disbursement of loan amount and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 8. We heard the rival submission, perused the material on record and evidence filed. The crux of the issue in appellate proceedings which ld. Departmental Representative is pressing that the assessee has disclosed the loan from Standard Chartered Bank as on 31.03.2007 as Rs. 1,07,00,000/- but substantiated only to the extent of Rs. 66,21,768/- as referred by the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings. The ld. Authorised Representative drew our attention to the certificate dated 19.02.2010 issued by the Karnataka Bank Ltd that Rs. 40,29,328/- was received from Standard Chartered Bank towards loan account of ....