AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income for the Asst Year 2011-12 on 20.5.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 2,21,20,900/- comprising of income from house property business & profession and other sources. The ld AO observed that the assessee had shown unsercured loan of Rs. 1,18,00,000/- from four parties as under:- Arabian Sea Food - Rs. 78,00,000/- Shatrunjaya Estate Pvt Ltd - Rs. 20,00,000/- Nikita M Gogar - Rs. 10,00,000/- Usha J Chauhan - Rs. 10,00,000/- Rs. 1,18,00,000/- The assessee was asked to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of unsecured loans. The assessee furnished a copy of acknowledgement of return of income and confirmation of said parties. 3.1. With regard to Arabian Sea Food, the ld AO observed that on verification of copy of acknowledgement of return, the said entity had returned a loss of Rs. 9,75,086/- and accordingly concluded that it did not have creditworthiness to advance monies to the assessee. The assessee also undertook to produce the party before the ld AO for examination but failed to do so. In these circumstances, the ld AO concluded that the assessee had not proved the three....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Considering all these circumstances and human probabilities, the ld AO added the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit in the assessment with regard to loan received from Smt Usha Chauhan. 3.5. Accordingly, the loans received from aforesaid parties in the total sum of Rs. 1,18,00,000/- was added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the assessment. 4. The assessee pleaded that the following documents were submitted before the ld AO :- a) Name and address of the lenders together with their PAN. b) Copy of loan confirmation duly signed by the assessee as well as the concerned lender from whom the loan has been taken. c) Copy of return of income of the parties from whom loan has been taken. d) Bank pass book of two parties highlighting the relevant loan transactions. e) PAN card copy of lenders. f) Affidavits from Smt Nikita Mahesh Sagar and Smt Usha Chauhan wherein they had affirmed that they were carrying on business of tailoring and embroidery works for the past 15 and 30 years respectively. The said affidavit also contained their income tax assessment particulars and also their respective source for advancing loans to the assessee herein. It w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that the assessee had furnished the complete details of the loan creditors in the instant case before the ld AO as detailed hereinabove. With regard to Arabian Sea Food and Shatrunjaya Estates Pvt Ltd , the assessee had not produced the bank statement of the loan creditors as the same was not in the control of the assessee and this fact was also informed to the ld AO at the time of assessment proceedings. The main grievance of the ld DR was that the assessee had not submitted the bank statements of these two loan creditors before the ld AO and hence creditworthiness of those parties were not proved by the assessee. We find that the ld AO having known that the assessee was not having control over the bank statements of lending entities, could have issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act or summons u/s 131 of the Act to those parties seeking for their bank statements. In the instant case, the ld AO had failed to do so. All the primary documents that are in possession of the assessee as a borrower were duly placed on record before the ld AO and thereafter the onus shifts to the ld AO, which was not discharged by the ld AO in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this regard, we find that the assessee had filed an affidavit stating that he was dependent on his chartered accountant as he he was not conversant with income tax laws and that his chartered accountant had not advised him at that point in time to prefer cross objections before this tribunal. This was further supplemented by a separate affidavit from the concerned chartered accountant. Hence in these circumstances, in the interest of substantial justice , we are inclined to condone the delay of 52 days in preferring the cross objection before us by the assessee and admit the same for adjudication. 9. The grounds raised in the cross objections are as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned ACIT 33(3), Mumbai (ACIT) erred in assessing Business Income as Income from Other Sources. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the learned ACIT erred in assessing Business Income of Rs. 2,20,20,125/- (i.e Net) as Income from Other Sources at Rs. 2,57,79,500/- (ie Gross amount) without giving any finding. 3. On the facts and circumstances and in law, it is apparent that the learned ACIT erred in simply disallowing the direct expenditure claimed vis-à-vis bus....