TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 789
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act') by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2)(3),Surat(in short "the AO"). 2. Ground No.1 &2 related to confirming addition of Rs. 23,31,000 as unexplained unsecured loan and interest of Rs. 2,13,708 thereon. 3. The AO found that the assessee has taken unsecured loans from Shri Kamlesh L Dhariwal of Rs. 18,56,000 , Rs. 2,75,000 from Shri Paresh Kumar R Patel and Rs. 2,00,000 from Shri Ratilal V. Tank. The AO held the assessee could not prove the Identity, the genuineness of the transaction and therefore, made the addition of Rs. 23, 31, 000 under section 68 of the Act. 4. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). Wherein it was submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the identity, creditworthiness, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in response to notice under section 133(6), which is discernible from Page No. 5 of assessment order. It was explained that Shri Kamlesh L Dhariwal was his having capital of Rs. 20, 27, 632 as on 31. 03. 2012 out of which loan of Rs. 18,56,000 was given to the assessee. It was further submitted that profit has no relevance with loan amount as the same is given out of capital and not from profit. Shri Kamlesh Dhariwal was having sufficient cash out of cash, which was deposited in Bank, and cheque amount was given out of said bank account. Therefore, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.)/[2003] 127 Taxman 523 (Guj) it was submitted that the High Court has laid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hose PAN have been disclosed, Assessing Officer cannot ask assessee to further prove genuineness of transactions without first verifying such fact from income-tax returns of lenders. 7. In view of the foregoing, it was requested that CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 23,31,00 loan and interest of Rs. 2,13,708 paid to lenders. 8. Per contra, the ld. Sr. D.R. relied on the AO /CIT (A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that Shri Kamlesh Dhariwal, son of the assessee, has filed confirmation in response to notice under section 133(6), which is discernible from Page No. 5 of assessment order. Shri Kamlesh L Dhariwal was having capital of Rs. 20, 27, 632 as on 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loan in subsequent year, no addition was to be made in current year on account of cash credit. In view of this matter, this addition made by the AO is therefore, deleted. 10. With regard to loan of Rs. 2 Lakh from Shri Ratilal V. Tank, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that copy of confirmation was filed of which copy is placed at Paper Book Page No. 21. The loan was taken by cheque drawn on Bank of Rajasthan. Therefore, identity, credit-worthiness and genuineness of transaction has been duly proved. Hence, CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the addition. The learned Counsel also relied in the case of CIT v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava [2012] 81 CCH 193 Guj-HC whereas it was held that Where lenders of assessee are income-t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has not given any finding that how he was liable to deduct TDS on the payment made to Kalpesh Kantilal Gosalia. However, the fact remains that the appellant had made expenditure of Rs. 1, 98,750 towards Archana Plot No.85 for which no contra confirmation was filed regarding the payment. Therefore, the AO has rightly held that filing of the copy of the confirmation and acknowledgement and balance sheet of does not prove the genuineness of the source of the payment. Accordingly, the addition was confirmed. 16. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before this tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the expenditure of Rs. 1,98,750 is incurred in cash, which is not been claimed in the PLA account as being capit....