TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has sustained the addition so made by the Assessing Officer hence, the assessee in appeal before us. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee during the assessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings has duly discharged his onus by providing Name, PAN, Address as well as Confirmations, ITR, Financial Statements and Bank Statements in respect of unsecured loan obtained from Mr. S.L Solanki and M/s Mewad Infrastructure (P) Ltd. It was submitted that these loans were taken through banking channel and the loan of M/s Mewad Infrastructure (P) Ltd. has since been repaid in F.Y. 2018-19. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer issued noticed U/s 133(6) as well as summons u/s 131 of the IT Act which was duly served on Mr. S.L Solanki however, the same were not served on M/s Mewad Infrastructure (P) Ltd. on account of wrong address. It was submitted that both the parties appeared before AO, however, ld. AO denied to record their statements as both the parties....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 200,000/- was taken, he was not produced. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as genuine. For third creditor, Shri Arvind, the assessee changed his stand and stated that it is not loan but advance. On perusal of overall facts, I find that the assessee did not discharge his burden to prove the 2 cash creditors i.e. Shri Solanki and M/s. Mewar Infrastructure (P) Ltd. in spite of ample opportunity, no books of accounts of M/s Mewar Infrastructure (P) Ltd in which assessee himself was director was produced. Shri S.L. Solanki was also not produced. For Mr. Arvind, the assessee changed his stand that it is an advance but does not change the nature of the transactions. Onus of proof which by upon the assessee was not discharged therefore, the same is confirmed. These grounds of appeal is dismissed." 5. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. In respect of transaction with Mr S L Solanki, the assessee has filed the necessary information in terms of name and address, PAN Number, ITR, bank statement and confirmation of Mr S L Solanki. Further, the notice issued u/s 133(6) and u/s 131 have been duly served on him, however, he has explai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said transaction under the head "unsecured loan" instead of the head "advance received from customers" and the identity of Mr. Arvind stood established as notice U/s 131 of the Act was duly served upon him, however, there is nothing on record in terms of basic documentation to support the said contention that the transaction was in nature of advance from customers in regular business dealings of the assessee and whether the same has been adjusted and offered to tax as income either in the year under consideration or in the subsequent years. Therefore, the amount so found credited in the books of accounts is hereby confirmed as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act and the addition to this extent is confirmed. 8. In the result, the ground is partly allowed. 9. Further, the ld. AR requested for permission to raise additional ground of appeal as under:- "on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law the ld. AO has erred in making addition of Rs. 1,69,878/- u/s 43CA of the IT Act, 1961. The action of the ld. AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition of Rs. 1,69,878/-" 10. It was sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken by the assessee should not be admitted as the said ground though taken before the ld CIT(A) was not pressed before him and once the same has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee cannot be allowed a second chance to raise the ground which has not been pressed before the ld CIT(A). 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee took a specific ground before the ld CIT(A) against the action of the Assessing officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,69,878 u/s 43CA of the Act. The ld CIT(A) has thereafter recorded a clear finding and dismissed the said ground of appeal stating that the ground of appeal was not pressed by the appellant, hence dismissed. No doubt, the matter is emerging from the impugned order so passed by the ld CIT(A). At the same time, when the same was raised before the ld CIT(A) and the assessee has given up its claim before the ld CIT(A) by specifically stating that he doesn't wishes to press the same and following the said submission of the assessee, the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the said ground, we do not see any infirmity in the said order of the ld CIT(A). Further, once the assessee has....