TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 1150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO towards bogus liabilities on account of unverified Unsecured loans of Rs. 54, 00, 000/- as no evidence was produced by the assessee to prove the genuineness and the creditworthiness of the person, from whom loans were taken. The learned CIT(A) also failed to appreciate the facts which have been brought on record by the AO by treating the unsecured loan as unexplained cash Credit u/s 68. " 03. "The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend and to modify any of the ground of appeal. " 2. Assessee, a Civil Contractor, is engaged in the business of lifting and transporting municipal waste /refuse by hiring out its compactor Trucks to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). He filed his return of income on 29. 10. 2007 declaring income at Rs. 16, 61, 590/-. AO finalised the assessment on 21. 12. 2009 u/s. 143(3)of the Act, determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 3,12,24,330/-. 2. 1. First ground of appeal is about deleting the addition of Rs. 2, 31, 39, 030/-made by A. O. towards Transportation Charges. During the assessment proceedings AO found that the assessee paid Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he had also submitted full address given by those parties, that he had issued A/c payee cheques to sub contrators after proper TDS, that there was no propriety to disallow all such expenditure merely on the basis of non-service or non-receipt of notice by the parties or merely on the reason that these parties were not physically presented by the assessee, that assessee furnished the basic evidences and had discharged his primary onus about the genuineness of payment to the various parties/transporters, it was the responsibility of the AO to investigate from the bank accounts and see whether cheque so issued were actually received by them or not, that it was the responsibility of the AO to make inquiries from MCGM about the genuineness of lifting of waste by the assessee through such other transporters, that on total receipts of Rs. 4, 67, 62, 320/- the assessee had shown net profit @ 28. 59%. , that there was no evidence of inflation of expenditure, that if all the transport expenditure were to be disallowed then it would lead to absurdity of the conclusion that such work had been done without vehicle or transporter. 2. 3. Before us, Departmental Representative(DR) submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 1 against the AO. 3. Next ground of appeal is about deletion of addition, made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act, on account of unexplained unsecured loans shown by the assessee in the balance sheet, amounting to Rs. 54 lakhs. According to the AO, the assessee had shown loan of Rs. 68, 62, 626/-in the name of 9 parties. Out of all these except Ankur Doshi, Sangita Anil Parekh, Hansukhlal Mehta, assessee could not establish the capacity, genuineness and proper identity of following six creditors: Sl. . No. Name Amount 1. M/s Mukti Exports Rs. 18, 00, 000/- 2 . Samir Jayantilal Shah Rs. 6, 00, 000/- 3 Jayantilal P. Shah Rs. 16, 25, 000/- 4 Vijay D. Shah Rs. 1, 00, 000/- 5 Shantihen S. Shah Rs. 9, 75, 000/- 6 Charmv A. Mehta Rs. 3. 00, 000/- 3. 1. In appeal it was contended that all the six parties were genuine, capable of giving loans and they were regular income-tax payees, that the assessee had produced some of the creditors for personal verification before the AO, that all the required details; like copy of Pan Card, copy of return of income balance sheet with all the annexures, copy of Bank a/c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was no propriety on the part of the AO to presume that there was no genuine loan transactions on the ground that only few years ago Shri Jayantilal Shah had met the assessee, that the business relations and business need or business transactions and personal relationship was not within the domain of AO to presume otherwise than accepting the reality unless some more evidence was there in his possession proving otherwise. Similarly in the case of Vijay D. Shah, FAA held that he had expressly explained to the AO about his loan given to the assessee, that there was no valid for the AO to doubt and make the addition in the hands of the assessee, that the creditor had given details and evidences, that merely on the basis of statement that his hank account was operated by his father genuineness of loan could not he doubted. With regard to loan appearing in the name of Shantiben S. Shah, FAA held that the findings of the AO was baseless because the return of income and other details submitted by her had been accepted by the AO, there was no corroboration of fact that Shantiben Shah was not genuine person or not capable of giving such loan, that she was regularly filing return of in....