TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son acting judicially and properly instructed on facts and law; would have done. Unsecured Loans addition (Rs. 7.20 Lacs) 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming erroneous addition of 720000/- for genuine unsecured loans (correct figure Rs. 6,20,000/-) 2.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT Appeals erred in confirming erroneous addition of Rs. 7,20,000/- for genuine unsecured loans: a) Which are duly confirmed and proven: b) Merely on basis of cash deposit in lender's a/c which is not valid ground to make addition and c) Without any adverse/incriminating material on records and d) Without any meaningful and perceptible....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued on 7.8.2014 which was served on 11.8.2014 for 14.8.2014. In response to statutory notices, the A.R. of the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and filed the information / evidence which have been examined. During the assessment proceedings, AO noted that assessee had accepted unsecured loans from Kanta Chugh of Rs. 1.50 lacs on 20.12.2011, from Krishna Wanti Chugh of Rs. 2.50 lacs and Renu Chugh of Rs. 2.20 lacs on 8.2.2012. The AO observed that cash deposit had been made in the bank accounts of these parties on the same day when cheques were issued to the assessee. The AO further observed that the assessee was given an opportunity to explain and establish the creditworthiness of the parties from whom the loans had b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rance and availability of supplier which is irrelevant to whole issue. In support of this contention, he relied upon the following cases laws: a) ITAT, SMC Bench, Mumbai in the case of Adamji & Company vs. ITO vide order dated 27.5.2016 passed in ITA No. 25/Mum./2016 (AY 2009-10). b) ITAT, 'F' Bench, New Delhi in the case of ITO vs. M/s Rancure Investments Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 4.4.2016 passed in ITA No. 6099/Del/2013 (AY 2009-10). c) ITAT, 'B' Bench, New Delhi in the case of Sh. Himanshu Chawla vs. ITO vide order dated 04.4.2016 passed in ITA No. 737/Del/2014 (AY 2005-06). 5. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the records and gone through....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee. 2.7 On the other hand the A .appellant has only emphasized that Income Tax Return, PAN and other details have been filed by the assessee before the AD and therefore the credit worthiness of the parties has been established. However, the AR has not provided the details of returned income of the parties and the explanation for deposit of cash by one person immediately before cheques were issued to the appellant. Establishing the credit worthiness and genuine would imply that the parties would be having sufficient surplus savings and funds backed by capital assets to provide loan to the appellant. Merely by providing the Income Tax Return and PAN number is not enough to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the unsecu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... though the books of account have not been rejected, since the AO has clearly established that the purchases were bogus, there is no justification for accepting the contentions of the AR that only part of the purchase should be disallowed. 3.7 In view of the above observations this addition made by the AO is upheld and the ground is dismissed." 6.1 After perusing the aforesaid finding of the ld. CIT(A), with regard to addition of Rs. 7,20,000/- on account of unsecured loan is concerned, I find that AO has made the addition by highlighting that with regard to the three parties, Kanta Chugh. Krishna Wanti Chugh and Renu Chuqh; there were cash deposits in the back account of these parties immediately preceding the cheque issue to the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reditworthiness and genuineness of the unsecured loans. Accordingly, this addition made by the AO was rightly upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on my part, hence, I uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and dismiss the issue in dispute raised by the assessee. 6.2 With regard to addition of Rs. 21,46,261/- relating to unverified purchases is concerned, I find that AO has conducted detailed enquiries regarding the details of purchases from M/s Haryana Trading Company and M/s Vishal Traders and had come to logically conclude that these purchases from the parties could not be established. The bills of the parties did not have Sales Tax No., TIN No. or CIN No. Further, on physical verification....