TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A No.2/TVM/CIT(A)-lll/2018-19 dated 17.12.2018 for the asst. year 2005-06, is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2) It is respectfully submitted that the proceedings are barred by limitation' and as a consequence thereof the impugned order is non-est in law. 3) It is further respectfully submitted that there are no valid grounds or materials before the assessing officer to discredit the creditworthiness of late Mr.Subair Khan to the extent of the amount invested in the construction. 4) Without prejudice, it is further respectfully submitted that the conditions for invoking section 68 are not satisfied. 5) It is further submitted that the fact that the assessment order is set aside by the ITAT, Cochin Bench also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and allowed the appeal. 9) The appellant humbly prays that the grounds of appeal before the CIT(A) as well as before this Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA Nos.369 & 298/C/2016 may also be considered as part of these grounds. 10) The appellant craves leave to file additional grounds at the time of hearing. 4. The facts of the case for AY 2005-06 are that as per the balance sheet filed by the assessee, the assessee had an unsecured loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- from Mr. Subair Khan who was the brother-in-law of the Mr. Mohanan Nair (Managing partner of Killi Construction). The Assessing Officer vide order u/s.144 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 27/12/2010 added the said amount as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act as the source was unexplained. Out of the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) found that the assessee had maintained good relationship with that of the family of Mr. Subair Khan and thus, rejected the contention of repayment of loan of Rs. 15,20,000/- as deemed rental income. The assessee had not shown the amount of Rs. 15,20,000/- as deemed rental income in the return of income. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had neither provided any confirmation letter regarding the repayment of the loan account from the relatives of Mr. Subair Khan nor any other verifiable evidence in support of the repayment. The CIT(A) found that the signature of Mr. Subair Khan as appended in the deed of agreement dated 06/02/2007 was different from that of the signature appended in the confirmation letter dated 10/02/2004. In such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s Killi Construction and he was a prospective customer of the project, who had intention to own a convenient place in the upcoming project and payment made towards thereof while construction was in progress. According to the Ld. AR, the Financial Year 2004-05 was the first year of commencement of the firm and it was highly improbable that the assessee had unexplained income, even at the time of commencement of the firm. The total credit in his account was Rs. 15 lakhs. It was submitted that Late Subair Khan confirmed the transaction through letter dated 10.02.2009 before he died on 08.08.2009. Further, it was submitted that the confirmation was also submitted by the legal heirs of the deceased through letter dated 27.04.2015 and the tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08.08.2009. Hence, no confirmation was possible from him. It was submitted that the assessee provided confirmation letters from the brother and mother of Late Subair Khan, who were aware of the transaction. However, the Assessing Officer merely stated that production of confirmation letters from mother and brother cannot be treated as valid evidence. According to the Assessing Officer, the confirmation letters are dated 27.04.2015 and 16.08.2018, which are almost 10 years later than the year in which the loan was taken. Accordingly, the amount was added as unexplained loan. 6.5 The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) repeated what the Assessing Officer stated without taking into consideration several different transactions in the ledger cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med. This was supported by the entries in the Bank pass book. This fact has not been disputed by the Department. In such circumstances, the addition cannot be sustained for both the assessment years. The allegation of the Assessing Officer is that the confirmation letters are dated 27/04/2015 and 16/08/2016 which are almost ten years later than the year in which the loan was taken. These confirmation letters were furnished by the brother and mother of Late Mr. Subair Khan and it cannot be doubted without examining these parties. The Assessing Officer has made the addition without providing any evidence contrary to the submissions made by the assessee which is not correct. Further, there is no reason to suspect the bonafides and genuineness....