TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 775
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the addition made U/s 68 treating part of the unsecured loans as unexplained. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate. The return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 13.10.2010 u/s 139(1) declaring Nil income. Search and seizure operations were carried out on 03.03.2016 at various premises of Shubham Group. Kota to which assessee company belongs. In response to notice u/s 153A dt. 05.09.2016, assessee again filed the return on 03.10.2016 declaring Nil income. In the assessment framed u/s 153A, AO made addition/ disallowance u/s 40A(3)/ 68 of the Act. Before ld. CIT(A) assessee claimed that the disallowance made in the assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs under the normal provisions and the assessment proceedings under section 153A are not conducted simultaneously since that would result in redundancy. Therefore, the already completed assessments do not abate and they shall hold the field. 5. In view of the above, it was contended that since no incriminating material was found during search and the assessment was not pending as on the date of search, no addition was warranted in respect of unsecured loans taken in earlier years. 6. The ld AR of the assessee has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 584 (Bom), CIT Vs. Gurinder Singh Bawa (2016) 386 ITR 483 (Bom) and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osited in the bank account, therefore, only to the extent of such cash deposit, creditworthiness and genuineness of loan creditor was not proved. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition to that extent. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. From the record, we found that during the A.Y. 2010-11 assessee received amount of Rs. 16,50,000/- by account payee cheque from the following persons: - Name Date Amount Total Amount Arjun Khangar 17.8.2009 19.08.2009 2,50,000/- 6,00,000/- 8,50,000/- Suman Khangar 16.10.2009 3,00,000/- 3,00,000/- Shobhna Khangar 17.08.2009 15.10.2009 3,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 5,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account of assessee. However, the burden does not go beyond to put the assessee under an obligation to further prove as to wherefrom the creditor has got or procured the money to be deposited or advanced to the assessee. The explanation furnished by the creditor about the source from where he procured the money to be deposited or advanced to the assessee is not relevant for the purpose of rejecting the explanation furnished by the assessee and making additions of such deposits as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources by invoking section 68 unless it can be shown by the department that the source of such moneys come from the assessee himself or such source could be traced to the assessee itself. In the present case, while the exist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee, the cash credits cannot be treated as unexplained income of the assessee." 14. Applying the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the instant case, we do not find any merit in the addition upheld by the ld. CIT(A). It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has explained identity of loan creditor, genuineness of loan transaction as well as availability of funds in the creditor's account. During the A.Y. 2010-11 and 2012-13 under consideration, the assessee is not required to prove source of the source. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the addition so confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 15. Similarly, in the A.Y. 2012-13, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 1.00 ....