TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal s )- I , Ludhiana has erred in confirming the addition to the tune of Rs. 21,59,000/- out of addition of Rs. 41,59,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained credit s u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act , 1961. 2. That the act ion of the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal s ) in upholding addition of Rs. 21,59,000/- i s against the fact s and circumstances of the case and by not considering the fact that , requisite details establishing identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of above said parties had already been filed before the Assessing Officer , which ought to have been considered by the Worthy CI T(A). ITA No. 232/Chd/2013 3. In this appeal Department has raised the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (vii).. The lenders have not given the details of their bank accounts from where such payments have been made. 3.. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts that while submitting the remand report, the AO had specifically objected to the admission of additional evidence at appellate stage under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 4. After hearing both the parties we find that a search was conducted in the Motia group of cases and assessee is a part of the same group. During the assessment proceedings it was noticed that assessee has shown unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1,17,57,702/- and therefore assessee was required to prove these unsecured loans by showing identity, genuineness an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Vinod Jain Panchkula 100000 23 Vinod Kumar No address given by the assessee 200000 24 Vipin Kumar H.No. 225, new lal bag colony, Patiala 300000 Total 41,59,000 In the absence of any confirmation the sum of Rs. 41,59,000 was added to the income of the assessee. 5. On appeal certain additional evidences were filed in the form of confirmation etc. and the same were sent for obtaining remand report. Finally the issue had been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) vide para 7 & 8 which is as under: 7. I have considered the issue of admission of additional evidence as sought by the appellant and comments of the Assessing Officer on the same. It is a matter of fact that the Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of stereo type, on a plain paper mentioning no specific date of payment / interest. The Assessing Officer has further admitted that copies of return of income and PAN or each lender has been attached as evidence. It has also been observed that the lender has not charged any interest despite having meager income. It has also been observed that it is not clear as to whether loans were ever returned back and no interest had been charged by any of the lender for lending money for indefinite. I have perused the confirmation filed by the appellant during the appellate proceedings as well as the copies of account of such lender as recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant. It is to appreciate tat the Assessing Officer's observation that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted amounting to Rs. 2427/- The amount has been returned alongwith interest by cheque dated 25,12,2004 and 7/5/2005. It is therefore appellant from the perusal of details filed by the appellant alongwith the confirmation that the Assessing Officer's objections for no factual basis with regard to amounts received from eight lenders to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs. The appellant has discharged onus cast upon u/s 68 with respect to these credits as identity, credit worthiness as well as genuine of the transaction has been established. Therefore, the addition to the tune of Rs. 20 lac is directed to be deleted however with respect to rest of Rs. 21,59,000/-. The appellant has not been able to file any confirmation from the said parties despite o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... guise of these copies of accounts asking for more opportunity which is not permissible under the law. Therefore, application for admission of additional evidence is rejected. 9. In the light of the rejection of application for additional evidence the ground raised by the assessee required to be dismissed because assessee has miserably failed to prove the loans to the extent of Rs. 41,59,000/- because no confirmation or any evidence proving such transaction was furnished before AO or even before Ld.CIT(A) or even before us. 10. As far as the Revenue's appeal is concerned, we have already reproduced the para 7 and 8 of the impugned order. Careful perusal of para 8 would show that Ld. CIT(A) has discussed four items of loans in case of ....