TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 753
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessing officer are illegal, unjust, highly excessive and are not based on any material on record by the assessing officer. The total income of the assessee appellant has been wrongly and illegally computed by the assessing officer on at Rs. 4,70,080.00 as against declared income of Rs. 82,912.00. 3. That, the Assessing Officer has erred in making the addition ofRs.3,75,000.00 to the Income of the assessee on account of difference in closing balance, which is highly arbitrary, unjustified and against facts of the case. The CIT (A) has erred in upholding the same. 4. That, the CIT(A)/AO has failed to appreciate that the assessee has discharged its onus related to identity, genuineness and creditworthiness by filing the requisit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... charged under various sections is also wrongly worked out. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify the grounds of appeal of the said appeal. All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and are mutually exclusive to each other. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his e-return of income showing income at Rs. 75,550/-. The return of the assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 at returned income. The case was selected for scrutiny for the reason unsecured loans from persons who have not filed return of income. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 02.9.2014 and the same was served on 06.9.2014 as per signatures obtained on the second copy of the notice. Subse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the AO made the addition of Rs. 3.75 lacs and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 4,70,080/- vide order dated 22.3.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 20.6.2017 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the action of the AO. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before me. 6. During the hearing, the learned AR before me filed a paper book which is running from pages 1 to 17 in which he has attached the copy of notice issued u/s. 133(6) to Sh. Mahender Kumar Jain; copy of response submitted by Sh. Ashish Jain L/H of Sh. Mahender Kumar Jain; Copy of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in the case of Zafa Ahmad & Co. Vs. CIT 263 CTR 612 (All.) 7. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that creditworthiness of Sh. Mahendra Kr. Jain has not been proved and the addition of Rs. 3.75 lacs has been rightly made. He further stated that during the appellate proceedings the A.R. of the assessee has not given any further material to support the grounds of appeal but has stated that the assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of the source, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. IN support of her contention, she relied upon the following case laws: - Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2016) ITA 79/2016 wherein it was held that addition made u/s. 68 on account of un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been made, as result thereof, the assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness in respect of loan taken from Mahendra Kr. Jain to the extent of Rs. 3.75 lacs and the onus was on the assessee as required u/s. 68 of the Act. Hence, he AO made the addition of Rs. 3.75 lacs. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the action of the AO. But I find during the hearing the assessee has filed a paper book which is running from pages 1 to 17 in which he has attached the copy of notice issued u/s. 133(6) to Sh. Mahender Kumar Jain; copy of response submitted by Sh. Ashish Jain L/H of Sh. Mahender Kumar Jain; Copy of the confirmed copy of account from the books of Mahender Kumar Jain; copy of the Income Tax Return of Sh. Mahender Kumar Jain alongwit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of Zafa Ahmad & Co. Vs. CIT 263 CTR 612 (All.). As per the settled law, if the identity of the shareholders and genuineness of transactions had been established by the assessee, the addition could have been made in the hands of shareholder(s). I am of the considered view that assessee has duly explained the source of money received and the assessee is not answerable for the source of money in the hands of investors, who had already died. The case laws cited by the Ld. DR are on distinguished facts, hence, are not applicable. In this regard I draw support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely exports (Supra) wherein it was held as under :- "2. Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed ....