TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,87,000/- made u/s. u/s.68 of J.T. Act without appreciating that the assessee had miserably failed to discharge onus case on it u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assesse had produced confirmation of the lenders before the Assessing Officer despite the fact that no such confirmation was produced by the assesse during the course of assessment proceedings making the order of Ld.CIT(A) factually erroneous. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that assesse had discharged the onus u/s.68 of the I.T. Act as the assesse neither produced d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to file the details along with confirmations in respect of the said loan creditors. The assessee vide written submissions dated 05.02.2016 submitted the details which have been reproduced in para 6.2 of the assessment order. The AO observed that assessee has borrowed Rs. 29,87,000/- out of the total Rs. 42,22,200/- in the current financial year for which no confirmation was filed. The AO again vide order sheet note dated 09.02.2016 called upon the assessee to furnish the confirmations along with requisite details which the assessee failed to file and ultimately the AO added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act on the ground that assessee was not able to prove loans with evidences such as confirmations from cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be without much basis which cannot be sustained in appeal and is directed to be deleted. Accordingly this ground of appeal is allowed." 6. The Ld. D.R. submitted before the Bench that assessee has failed to file any details qua these loans of Rs. 29,87,000/- and therefore the same were rightly added by the AO. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in granting the relief to the assessee by not appreciating the fact that the loan transactions were totally unexplained as assessee has not filed any confirmations, bank statements, copies of accounts from the parties etc. The Ld. CIT(A) has simply noted that the identity and creditworthiness of the party were not in doubt and ordered the deletion of addition of Rs. 29,87,000/-. The Ld. D.R. final....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue. 9. The issue raised in ground No.4 by the Revenue is against the deletion of disallowance on account of business expenses of Rs. 20,69,525/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on the ground that assessee was not having any income during the year and even the business of assessee was closed in the subsequent years. 10. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noticed that assessee has received income from other sources of Rs. 22,76,433/- against which the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs. 19,35,859/-. The AO found the receipts to be on account of interest income and accordingly issued show cause notice to the assessee as to why the expenses should not be disallowed as there was no business activity in the company durin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai (supra) is applicable. Respectfully following the above judgment of ITAT Mumbai the addition made by the AO. by disallowing the claimed business expenses of Rs. 2069525/- is found to be without much basis which cannot be sustained in appeal and is directed to be deleted. Accordingly this ground of appeal is allowed." 12. Having heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record, we find that assessee was not carrying any business activity during the year and eventually closed the company after two years without doing any business. From the perusal of order of AO and Ld. CIT(A) we find that the assessee has not submitted any details of expenses claimed. It is also true that ass....