TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the trade name of M.S.Sachdeva & Co., the proprietary business concern of the assessee. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee as to why the said amount was not disclosed in the balance sheet of the assessee, it was explained that the amount was repaid in two instalments, both in cash before the end of the relevant financial year and, therefore, there was no entry to reflect this transaction in the balance sheet. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the explanation of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. 5. Before us, ld D.R. supported the order of the Assessing Officer and ld A.R. supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- on account of capital introduced by the assessee in her firm M.S.Sachdeva & Co., on the ground that the amount was received from M/s. Smarsh Fasteners, a proprietorship firm where the assessee is a partner and that this was not shown in the balance sheet of the assessee. 7. On appeal, the CIT(A) del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9.73,187.00 as on 31.3.2010 and Rs. 20,73,190/- as on 31.3.2011 and after his demise in February, 2011, the cash was transferred to her and therefore, the cash in hand has been increased to Rs. 17,38,209/- as on 31.3.2011. The above explanation of the assessee did not find favour and the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 14,29,711/- shown as cash in hand and added the same to the income of the assessee. 12. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under: "6.2 I have perused the materials on record, the reasons given by the AO for making the addition and the written submission of the assessee. Going through the assessment order, it appears that the AO is highly confused and has not been able to see the facts in their proper perspective. The AO has discussed in the assessment order about the cash in hand position of assessee's late father-in-law who was a copartner of the assessee in the erstwhile firm M/s. M S Sachdeva & Co. which ceased to exist from 13.2.2011. The AO has also discussed't he possibility of capital introduction of the assessee's father-in-law during the FY«2010-11 till his demise on 13.2.2011. This firm after the death ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red loan creditors, such as complete address of the creditors with their relationship with the assessee, initial amount of loan date with mode of receipt and the interest paid as on 31.3.2013. The assessee submitted that the loans were obtained prior to assessment year 2005-06 and the details are not available. The loans have been reflected in the audited balance sheet of the assessee. The Assessing Officer observed that both the loan creditors are the son of the assessee and the assessee is unaware of the details. Since the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans, the Assessing officer made addition of Rs. 12,06,080/- being unsecured loan of Rs. 11,64,712/- including interest thereon of Rs. 41,368/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 17. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under: "8.2 I have perused the facts on record and gone through the written submission of the assessee. The loans in question were obtained during the FY 2004-05 relevant to AY 2005-06 and the genuineness of the same had never been questioned earlier. Along with interest due for the relevant previous year 2012-13 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsidered the matter. The facts of the case have been perused. I have also gone through the assessment order and the written submission of the assessee. From the facts on record, it is found that the entire transactions of the assessee with her husband Sri H. K. Sachdeva are duly reflected in the books of account of both. The statement of the assessee that the amounts were being transferred from her bank accounts to the bank accounts of her husband on certain occasions for compelling reasons is also found to be correct. It is also a fact that the total amount of transfer from the bank accounts of the assessee to the bank accounts of her husband amounted Rs. 71,88,000/- during the relevant previous year 2012-13 and the same amount was given by her husband to her either in cash or through account transfers on various dates. At the end of the year, the account was squared off and there Even after being fully aware of this, the AO has mentioned as under before making the impugned addition: "...However, the sums of Rs. 16,78,000/- which have been transferred back to the current account of the assessee from the cash credit account of her husband was allowed being treated as recon....