TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 803
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugal Kishore Agrawal, partner of the assessee firm, the Department had filed an appeal before the Tribunal, against the CIT(A)'s order and the assessee had filed crossobjections. On 06.07.2016, the Department's appeal stood withdrawn as having low tax effect, due to which, the assessee's cross-objection become infructuous. They were dismissed as such. A copy of the said Tribunal order has been placed at pages 8-9 of the assessee's paper book. The assessee filed its appeal on 21.07.2016. 3. In 'Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kripa Chemicals (P) Ltd.', 82 ITD 449 (Pune), cited by the assessee, it has been held that notwithstanding the withdrawal of appeal by the Department, the cross-objections filed by the assessee survive for a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder consideration, the creditor has not received an interest on the amount given to the assessee as loans. It is highly unlikely that a person having income of only Rs. 1 lakh which is well below taxable limit shall advance loan of Rs. 3 lakhs to a person that too without any interest. 3.5.3 Therefore genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor Radha Rani Mangal is not proved, as required under section 68 of the Act. 3.6 On perusal of the bank statement of creditor Radha Rani Mangal, it is seen that there are cash deposits of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 05/09/2009, before the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been given as loan to the assessee on 15/09/2009. Similarly, there are deposits of Rs. 1,65,592/- on 10/03/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant. There is no regular source of income justifying the capacity of these persons to advance loan to the appellant. Therefore, I agree with the view of the AO that these persons (Radha Rani Mangal & Ram Kishan Mangal) do no have capacity (creditworthiness) to advance loan of Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 3,50,000/- to the appellant. As far as various decisions relied upon by the appellant are concerned they have given on different set of facts and not applicable to the case under consideration. Hence the addition of Rs. 3 lacs in respect of unsecured loan claimed to have been received from Radha Rani Mangal and addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- in respect of unsecured loan claimed to have been received from Ram Kishan Mangal are hereby confirmed." 7.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n No. 288 of 2009, Allahabad High Court. iii. 'Dy. CIT vs. Vishwanath Prasad Gupta', 129 ITD 95 ITA No.220/Jab/2008, ITAT-Jabalpur. iv. 'ACIT vs. Shri Jatinder Manchanda', ITA No. 4060/Del/2011, ITAT-Delhi. v. 'CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities (Pvt.) Ltd.', Delhi High Court. vi. 'Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anurag Agarwal', ITA No.362/2012 Allahabad High Court. 9. Heard. The assessee claims to have received unsecured loans of Rs. 3 lacs from Radha Rani Mangal and Rs. 3.50 lacs from Ram Krishna Mangal. Before the AO, the assessee filed name, address, PAN, bank account, accounts statements, Income Tax Returns, affidavits and confirmations regarding/from both the creditors. The AO observed (assessment order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....replies, again filing the documents filed by the assessee. Now, for the non-appearance of its creditors, the assessee cannot be faulted. If the AO was not satisfied with the creditors' replies, it was well within his powers to ensure their presence. This, however, was not done and the matter was decided against the assessee, holding that the assessee could not prove the source of the source of the loans received by it. This is not tenable in law, in keeping with 'Kalyan Memorial', (supra). 12. In 'Vishnu Jaiswal' (supra), it has been held that entry in the passbook of a third party can be taken as a primary evidence in proof of the fact that loan was advanced by the third party; that thus, the initial onus shifts onto the Revenue to prov....