2018 (4) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CIT(A) erred both in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,16,50,000/- made towards unproved cash credits u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to prove the cash credits as genuine. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the loan creditors have made cash deposits in their bank accounts just before the date of the loans advanced to the assessee company and the assessee did not cooperate with the Department at the time of assessment proceedings in such investigation. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have allowed the fresh evidence without calling for the remand report from the A.O. under Rule 46A of the IT Rules....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng them to tax in the hands of the assessee company. However, the AR did not have any objections for the said proposal. Thus, the assessee has grossly failed to stand the test of (1) identity (2) creditworthiness and (3) genuineness of the transactions in respect of the above two unsecured loans as it did not file any material whatsoever to stand the test of the above three parameters. This manifests the fact that these two alleged unsecured loans for a value totaling to Rs. 1,16,50,000/- are squared up ones sourced out of the unaccounted funds of the assessee company. Hence, the entire unproved cash credits (alleged unsecured loans) in the names of the above two persons totaling to Rs. 1,16,50,000/- are hereby disallowed u/s 68 of the Inco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order that before advancing amounts to the assessee, there are cash deposits in the accounts of the loan creditors i.e. Smt. P. Seshamma and Smt. M. Padmavathi. This aspect was not addressed by the CIT(A) at all. It is also submitted that the returns filed by the loan creditors subsequent to the assessment is only after thought and it cannot be accepted. He prayed that addition made by the A.O. may be sustained. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the parties and therefore, the A.O. is not justified in making the addition. The Ld. CIT(A0 by considering the returns filed by the loan creditors addition was deleted. Therefore, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ties is proved. When the assessee is having sufficient source of funds and its creditworthiness is not doubted and transaction is also genuine, what prevented the assessee to produce the details before details before the A.O. is neither explained before the CIT(A) nor before us. The A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings has given ample time from 24.11.2014 to 26.3.2015 i.e. near about 4 months time available to the assessee to produce the details. The assessee neither produced the details before the A.O. nor explained before the A.O. that these transactions are genuine transactions. When the A.O. has asked the assessee to produce these relevant details, he has not given any explanation and simply kept silent. Even before CIT(A) a....