TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly appreciating and considering various submissions, evidences and supporting placed on record during the course of the assessment proceedings, and not properly appreciating various facts and law in their proper perspective. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact in upholding the audition to the income of Rs. 5,81,000/- and rejection of books of accounts for the cash received as unsecured loan from various family members. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not directing the Ld. AO not to charging interest under section 234C and 234D of the Act." 2. The only effective ground of this appeal is against confirming the addition of Rs. 5,81,000/- in respect of unsecured loans. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had received money. In case AO wanted to verify such transactions from the depositors, AO could have called for information from such persons by issuing notices u/s 133(6). * Nothing prevented AO to carry out further inquiry on the basis of information furnished by the assessee. However, AO chose not to do anything of such sort. Rather, AO simply stated that assessee did not furnish requisite details and hence, he made the impugned addition. * In fact, AO merely sat tight over such information and did not put in any efforts to verify the contents of the information and documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. * S. 68 cast an initial burden on assessee to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of lenders which has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an approach is not tenable in the eye of law at all. * In the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of evidences placed on record, CIT(A) ought to have deleted the impugned addition." 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities below have erred by not providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The AO failed to summon the persons who had given unsecured loans. He submitted that all confirmation, income tax return etc. was filed before the AO, merely that amount is less than 20,000/- should not be the basis for suspicion. He submitted that the amount was returned to the creditors. Thus, the addition so made should not have been sustained. 4. Per contra the Ld. DR oppose the submission and order of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e changed her stand and claimed that the cash deposits were on account of loans taken from 30 persons who were close friends and relatives. Moreover, the only documents that have been submitted to prove the identity and creditworthiness of these deposits and genuineness of the transaction are copies of some ITRs and PAN cards. Some confirmations have also been filed which are self-created and do not have any evidentiary value. Moreover, it is also seen that the cash book produced by the appellant has several discrepancies and as is seen from the submission made, the appellant states that she had lost all the data for the year under consideration and has re-written all the accounts on the basis of vouchers, etc. available. Thus, I am in a....