AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....period of limitation for filing of appeal. The Ld. CIT (DR) had requested to condone the same as it has occurred due to technical reason and the delay was not deliberate or intentional hence, delay in filing of appeal may please be condoned. The learned counsel for the assessee did not oppose the small delay in filing of appeal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is settled law that the Court and Quasi- judicial bodies are empowered to condone the delay if the litigant satisfies the Court that there were sufficient reasons for the availing the remedy after the expiry of the limitation. Such a reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the Court. Considering the facts of present case and small delay of 1 day, We are of the view that there was no malafide intention for delay. The CIT (D.R.) for the revenue has been able to demonstrate sufficient reasons. Therefore, we fit to condone the delay in filing of appeal and allow the appeal to be proceeded with on merit. 5. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under: "[1] On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h cannot be accepted. Assessee never intimated such employment. Further, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction are not proved. Several features of accommodation entries provider detected from bank statement 4 Ashok Kumar Sarkar 1,27,326 The person has neither been found on enquiry nor produced by the assessee. Further, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction also not proved. Several features of accommodation entries provider detected from bank statement 5 Binod Kumar Jain 1,08,521 The person has neither been found on enquiry nor produced by the assessee. Further, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction also not proved. Several features of accommodation entries provider detected from bank statement 6 Chandan Sarawgi 1,32,922 -Do- 7 Deepmala 5,10,817 -do- 8 Gyan Enterprise 1,83,90,430 Proprietor concern of Gyanendra Kumar Singh, who has been neither produced and the assessee provided wrong name as Gyan Singh. Fund transfer out of overdraft. Person has tendency to return debt frequently and has substantial cash deposits. The assessee failed to produced cash book and failed to substantiate creditworth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. 20 Manju Hemani 1,36,108 The person has neither been found on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. 21 Mohd Qasim 1,42,271 Identity proved. Creditworthiness not proved, nor is the genuineness of transaction. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement 22 Mona Sarkar 2,92,681 The person was not traceable on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. 23 Mousami Sinha 4,06,128 The person was not traceable on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. 24 Munna Kumar Singh HUF 1,71,232 The person was not traceable on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. It was rather found that there is an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. Further, it is also seen that on one hand she has shown her status as house wife in the bank passbook and on the other she is showing income from business & profession. These contradictions have not been reconciled by the assessee. 31 R K Sinha HUF 1,44,889 The person was not traceable on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. It was rather found that there is an autorickshaw driver in the locality of Shri Jeevan Kumar Das. Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. 32 Rajkumari Sinha 1,67,939 The person was not traceable on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. It was rather found that there is an autorickshaw driver in the locality of Shri Jeevan Kumar Das. Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. 33 Rajesh Balmiki HUF 3,45,631 The person was not traceable on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled to produce the cash book etc of the alleged lenders to substantiate the source of such cash deposits. 39 Shree Ganesh Enterprises 76,47,946 This is a proprietorship concern of Shri Gayanendra Kumar Singh, who has neither been found nor produced by the assessee on commission inquiry. First the assessee provided wrong name as Gyan Singh. However, inquiry revealed the correct name. It is seen from the bank account statement that even though the fund transfer is out of over draft, the person has a tendency of returning the debt by frequent and substantial cash deposits. Despite a specific request, the assessee failed to produce the cash book etc of the alleged lenders to substantiate the source of such cash deposits. Creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. 40 Subodh Kumar Sinha HUF 1,59,159 The person has neither been found on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. 41 Subodh Kumar Sinha 2,91,806 The person has neither been found on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. Furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions" dated 24. 06. 2015 and 28.01.2016 and also paper book containing the copies of show cause notice and details submitted by the appellant during assessment stage. The relevant portion of submissions are discussed ahead, wherever required. In order to verify the factual correctness of some of assertions made by Id AO and the AR; a joint examination of assessment records was done on 20.01.2016 along with Shri Vipul Chavda, IRS, the ACIT Circle 1 (1)( 2), the jurisdictional AO and the A~ and the same is noted in order sheet. The ACIT CIT Circle 1 (1) (2) was asked to furnish, attested copies of following documents for detailed examination and for record purposes, and the same have been furnished by the Officer. The order sheet notings dated 20.01.2016 of the Joint examination of records is reproduced below. "Date 20.01.2016 "Shri. Vipul Chavda ACIT Circle 1 (1)(2) attended with assessment records. Shri Mukesh Khaitan CA & AR also present. Assessment records jointly examined. It is found that the assessment records have (i) list of unsecured loan creditors along with confirmation, bank accounts copies, ITR copies. (ii) Address proof of new addres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 27 lenders out of the 54 lenders based in Ranchi. But, still the ld AO has given the above finding in case of the 42 lenders without disclosing the basis of such a finding. (iii) The show cause notice dt 24. 03.2014 issued by the Id AO, acknowledges that only 8 persons were not found at their given addresses. There is no discussion anywhere in the assessment order on how he arrived at the conclusion that Neither found or produced by the assessee' in case of 42 lenders. The conclusions of the ld AO are contradictory to enquiry reports (Exhibit No 1 and 2). It is 0150 seen from both the enquiry reports that the. lenders were not asked to be produced. Even in joint examination made of assessment records no such summons or letter was found. The show cause notice, (which in a way narrates all the enquiries done), also does not mention any such summons or request for production of the said lenders. (iv) The inquiry report forwarded by the DClT Circle 1, Ranchi mentions that Shri J K Dos was asked to produce copies of ITR, bank details and computation or income for the lost 3 assessment years and the said Shri. J K Dos appeared end produced the said docume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial affairs are looked after by Shri. J. K. Dos. The Id AO tries to draw conclusion that since the family members do not know of the said loans, the loans cannot be held as genuine. I have examined this issue; It appears from the enquiry report, that the above statements were made verbally by family members in the enquiry made by the ITI. No mention of any statements recorded of the said family members is made in enquiry report or in the assessment order. Only statement recorded is of Shri Jeevankumar Dos. However, this statement was not mentioned in the said show cause notice, nor a copy of statement is given to appellant during assessment stage. On perusal of the assessment records, it was not found in the documents received from Ranchi. The Id AO has also not mentioned / reproduced any portion of the said statement, in the assessment order. Hence, the above alleged statement of family members do no carry any evidentiary value . In any case, as the enquiry report states, Shri. Jeevankumar Das appeared before Officers at Ranchi and confirmed the said loans and produced the documents asked for. Even otherwise, nothing adverse can be drawn from the statement of fam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yankurnar Singh was identified and ITR of his concerns were examined by the ACIT (TDS). M/s Gyan Enterprises has turnover to the extent of Rs. 3.27 crores and it has lent a sum of Rs. 1.77 crores, which has also been repaid by the appellant during the year itself. M/s Ruhi Enterprises has a turnover of Rs. 2.88 crores and it has lent Rs. 75 lakhs and the same has also been repaid during the year. The turnover of M/s Ganesh Enterprises (belonging to one Shri. Kailashchadra Kejriwal) has not been mentioned in report and the concern has lent Rs. 73,00,000/-, which has been repaid by the appellant in the same year. The ACIT (TDS) has not given any adverse finding in respect of creditworthiness or genuineness of the loans. Even the Id AO has not given any adverse findings from examination of the financial statements. The Id AO has erred factually here in concluding that M/s Ganesh Enterprises belongs to Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Singh, whereas it is the proprietary concern of Shri. Kailashchandra Kejriwal as per ITR and Tax audit report. The Id AO is hence, not justified in saying assessee has provided wrong address. 9. Other conclusions of the ld AO 9.1 The ld AO said that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estments or with better returns. Moreover, here the loans are given to the company wherein the lenders are share - holders, and they have some control. 9.3 Cases in which the lenders were not found in the given addresses, and the case of M/s Jyoti Vikas Industries. 9 3.1 As regards the eight persons not found in their stated addresses, it can be seen thot there is a contradiction in two reports in respect of (i) Mangal Kumar Singh (ii) Mangal Kumar Singh ( HUF). The Exhibit no. 1 states that Mr. Mangal Kumar Singh is assistant of Jeevan Kumar Das, whereas the Exhibit no. 2 states that Mr. Mongol Kumar Singh was not traceable at the given address. Regarding Irshad Khan and Ishrat Jahan, the table says addressee was not found on given address ,however, in the last paragraph of report , it is mentioned Jeevan Kumar Das has told that both have shifted and has given the new address in Karbala Ranchi. No enquiry was mode on new address. Tile AR contends that in response to the show cause notice from Ld AO, the address proofs of all the above have been submitted before the AO. The AR also explained that in the time gap between advancing of loon to appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Jevankumar Das have furnished the following (i) confirmation (ii) ITR copy (iii) Bank statements. In view of the extensive documents provided by the appellant before the AO, and also by the lenders before the DClT , Circle (1), Ranchl . I hold that the identities of the said lenders stand established and the inferences / conclusion drawn by the Id AO in this aspect are not supported by facts. 10.2 Creditworthiness 10.2.1 The two enquiry reports do not give any finding regarding the creditworthiness of the lenders. The Ld AO ,however, in the para 9.1 has made ' common observation'. Most of these persons are actually showing nominal incomes. As is typical of entry provider entities, these persons have neither a healthy balance sheet nor a potent enough Capital account which can vouch for the claimed investment in the shares of the appellant - company. The Ld AO follows it up with a table in next para where, he gives income of all lenders for the relevant assessment years. From this he draws conclusion that except one or two stand alone instances the lenders are not creditworthy in the true sense. 10.2.2 The Id AO in paragraph in 9.6 writes that the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection among themselves. The Id AO further states that. the lenders who have received credit from other than Motilal Oswal Securities, it is seen that cheques are issued from the same cheque Book. On examination of records, I find that even these file lenders have received cheques from same cheque Book and the cheques are in the name of Motilal Oswal only. So, immediate source for the said loan in case of 40 lenders is the amount received through Motilal Oswal. The AR submits as under on this issue ; i) the AO has not questioned source of investment' of lenders in the shares which have been sold now. ii) Motila! Oswal Securities is not a lender or creditor to the lenders. It is a leading share booking firm with online share broking portal allover India. Millions of people purchase and sell shares through it. iii) the Id AO himself states that lenders are all known to each other by connection to either Shri Jeevan Kumar Dos or Shri Sandeep Kejriwal who are admitted associates. Further, as stated in para 13.9 of the assessment order 30 lenders are also share-holders in the appellant - company, This shows that the said lenders take common invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 47 Hinddustan Industries (Prop Anilku mar Kejriwal ADLPK44 27F -6536800 4300 000 13600 000 1286 451 -17123251 49 Sanjay Kejriwal AJLPK38 96Q -104911 0 643500 72069 -820480 50 Sanjay Kejriwal (HUF) AAIHS00 93K 0 0 201000 19329 -220329 51 Suman Kejriwal AJKPK39 01C -177914 0 185000 37005 -399919 52 Sunita Kejriwal AFSPK18 83N (1644 53) 0 13840 00 68546 -1288093 56 Inderlal Kejriwal ADPPK32 66Q 0 0 900000 -900000 11.2 There is no discussion on why these loans are treated as 'explained ' whereas the other loans are treated as" unexplained loans'. On examination of re curds, it is also seen that the facts and circumstances are identical for these loons too. Some type of documents were produced before the Id AO as well as the officer at Ranchi, doing inquiry. Since, there is no distinguishing feature, pointed out by the Id AO, explanation and documents furnished in these cases carry the same degree of credibility as in the case of other lenders. It is also not the case of tile Id AO that these loans were not added, beca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce the above details are filed, it is for the AO to do enquiry and give findings to refute the documents with cogent reasons. (iv) The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, in Sr No.3 above, has held as under:- " Once the assessee has established that he has taken money by way of account payee cheques from the lenders who are all income tax assessees whose PAN have been disclosed, the initial burden under section 68 was discharged. It further appears that the assessee had also produced confirmation letters given by those lenders. [Para 15] Once the Assessing Officer gets hold of the PAN of the lenders it was his duty to ascertain from the Assessing Officer of those lenders, whether in their respective returns they had shown existence of such amount of money and had further shown that those amount of money had been lent to the assessee If before verifying of such fact from the Assessing Officer of the lenders of the assessee, the Assessing Officer decides to examine the lenders and asks the assessee to further prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction, the Assessing Officer does not follow the principle laid down under secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nquiries with regard unexplained creditors shown by the assessee. The inquiry report received by the AO were made part of assessment order as Exhibit - Exhibit-I and II. The AO discussed the finding of enquiry report in para No. 8.2 to 87 and summarized the conclusion in chart form in para 8.8 of his order. The Ld. CIT (DR) contended that the pattern of deposits and issuance of cheque established that not only the alleged lenders are not have any creditworthiness and mere accommodation entries through their bank account. The Ld. CIT (DR) contended that that mere filing of return of income of such lenders does not justify the genuineness of transaction. There is no justifiable commercial connection as to why these companies would investment with the assessee company. The ld. CIT vehemently supported the findings recorded by the AO and contended that the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the addition made under section 68 of the Act by the AO. 12. Au contraire, the learned counsel for the assessee referred para No. 8.2 (vii) at Page No. 10 of assessment order and submitted that the AO has observed that the ACIT-TDS, Ranchi has categorically mentioned as finding of fact tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. The learned counsel for the assessee referred point no. 9 at Page No. 3 of appellate order wherein Ld. CIT (A) has mentioned the claim of the assessee that it is surprising that cash deposits of Rs. 15, 00,000/- in the case of M/s. Kejriwal Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. has been considered as unexplained in the case. Whereas the ld. AO himself has scrutinized the said assessee u/s. 143(3) and have verified the books of accounts of M/s. Kejriwal Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. This shows the predetermination of the state of mind of the Ld.AO which superseded the facts available on the record with the AO and leaded the AO to make an unjustified and unlawful decision. The learned counsel for the assessee referred para No. 7.1 of CIT (A) order and submitted that the CIT (A) in the presence of the AO, the ACIT, Circle- 1(1)(2) Surat and the A.R. of the assessee has carried out joint examination of records and recorded a finding in his order sheet dated 20.01.2016 and found that the assessment record were having list of unsecured loan creditors along with confirmation , bank account and ITR`s copies address proof of new creditors of 8 persons and the commission issued by the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the enquiry report of ACIT (TDS) Ranchi revealed that M/s. Gyan Enterprise was having turnover of Rs. 3.27 crores and who have lent a sum of Rs. 1.77 crores. This loan was repaid by the Appellant during the year itself. M/s. Ruhi Enterprise had turnover of Rs. 2.88 crores, it has lent Rs. 75 lakhs, and the Appellant has repaid the same in the same year. Similarly, M/s. Ganesh Enterprise who lent Rs. 73 lakhs, which has been repaid by the Appellant in the same year. The ACIT (TDS) Ranchi or the AO has not given any adverse finding in respect of creditworthiness or genuineness of transaction in respect of these concerns. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the lenders were not asked to be produced by the AO before him. The learned counsel for the assessee referred para No. 9.3.1 to 9.3.2 of appellate order and submitted that Ld. CIT (A) has observed that there is contradictory reports of the AO. It was further observed that the assessee had filed all address of the creditors but due to time gap, it is possible that at the time of enquiry they will have shifted to new address. However, copies of income-tax returns and copy of new address was filed before CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an 80(SC), the Hon`ble Supreme Court observed that when the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR Numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the revenue's case and in order to sustain the addition the revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack of creditworthiness and mere noncompliance of summons issued by the Assessing Officer under section 131 by the alleged creditors will not be sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the assessee. 17. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that many lenders, the loan were repaid in same year and thereafter, therefore, it was submitted that where the loan were repaid in immediate next financial year and Department has accepted the repayment of loans without probing into it. Then no addition is required to be made in respect of said lenders. In support of this claim , the learned counsel for the assessee has relied in the case of CIT v. Ayachi Chandrasekhar Narsangji [2014] 42 taxmann.com 251 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that where Department had accepted repayment of loan in subsequent year, no addition was to be made in current year on account of cash cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the said loan as non-genuine transaction, when he himself has accepted the same in assessment in respect of said concern. With reference to AO`s observation`s in para 12.2 at Page No. 28 of assessment order that why these person having weak financial credential would advance unsecured loans the assessee company when return on such loans does not justify the associated risk. The learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the interest paid to these entities are @ 12% , hence, the observation of the AO are mere suspicion and conjecture only. We observe that Ld. CIT (A) has given a categorical findings column no. 4 of Annexure-1 of assessment order and enquiry report (Exhibits 1&2 to assessment order) revealed that only 8 persons (5 as per DCIT Circle -1 Ranchi and 3 as per ACIT(TDS) Ranchi were not found at the stated address. The show-cause notice of the AO dated 24.03.2014 also acknowledged that only 8 person on the given address were not found. We observe that Ld. CIT (A) noted that there is no discussion in the assessment order as to how the AO arrived at the conclusion that 42 lenders were neither found or produced by the assessee. Therefore, the conclusion of the AO ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere not found at the stated address as per enquiry reports. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that Ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition made under section 68 of the Act by the AO. 19. We further observed that the ld. CIT (A) has examined each and every creditors/ lenders and given his factual findings of enquiry report as well as facts of each lenders in column 5 of Annexure-A forming part of his appellate order which is reproduced as under: Sr. No. Name of Lender Remarks Statement made by Ld AO What the inquiry report reveals 1 Akshay Singh HUF Rs. 6,88,73R (Loan- 6,27,300 + Interest- 61,438) The person has neither been found on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. (Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement.) (Para 94 of AO). Inquiry report is silent about this person. Copies of ITR, computation and copy of bank accounts given before the inquiry officer, at Ranchi. 2 Akshay Singh Rs. 1,51,475 (Loan- 1,38,000 + Interest- 13,475) The person has neither been found on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 1nqu1ry nor produced Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions ore also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. Inquiry report is silent about this person. Copies of ITR, computation and copy of bank accounts given before the inquiry officer, at Ranchi. 8 Gyan Enterprises Rs. 5,10,817 (Loan- 4,65,000 + Interest- 45,817) This is a proprietorship concern of Shri Gayanendra Kumar Singh, who has neither been found nor produced by the assessee on commission inquiry. First the assessee provided wrong name as Gyan Singh. However, inquiry revealed the correct name. It is seen from the bank account statement that even though the fund transfer is out of over draft, the person has a tendency of returning the debt by frequent and substantial cash deposits. Despite a specific request, the assessee failed to produce the cash book etc of the alleged lenders to substantiate the source of such cash deposits. Creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. All these concerns are the Proprietorship concern of Shri Gyananedra Kumar Singh and not Gyan Singh as mentioned in the letter. The office address of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... + Interest-84 ,329) Assessee neither found nor produced. No confirmations filed. Not even proper documentary evidences filed. Case fails on all the three parameters. He (KJD) could not produce the document of Jyoti Vikash Industries (PAN- ACWPD0779M) PAN belongs to Shri Kamal Kr Dhanuka and his bank account has been attached by the CBI in coal scam case. The PAN belongs to Kamla Kr Dhanuka. Moreover, the office of M/s Jyoti Vikash Industries was not found on the given address. 15 Kiran Singh Rs. 2,52,662 (Loan- 2,30,000 + Interest- 22,662) Sister of Shri Jeevan Kumar Das. Identity proved but creditworthiness not proved. She is found to be receiving entries from none other than some of the entry providers mentioned in the current list itself. Claim to be earning commission from Mr Rajesh Kumar Prahladka but no evidence submitted. She is sister of Jeevan Kr Das. ITR copy and copy of bank accounts produced. 16 Krishna Singh Rs. 1,31,824 (Loan- 1,20,000 + Interest- 11,824) Son of Shri Jeevan Kumar Das. However, bank accounts statement reflects the same typical characteristics as of entry providing entities. Genuineness of transactions also not prove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. Inquiry report is silent about this person. Copies of ITR, computation and copy of bank accounts given before the inquiry officer, at Ranchi. 23 Mousami Sinha Rs. 4,06,128 (Loan- 3,70,000 + Interest- 36,128) The person was not traceable on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. The assessee is not traceable on the given address, i.e. jorar basti, Namkum, Ranchi. But, ITR copy and bank account copy are filed by Jeevan Kr Das. 24 Munna Singh HUF Rs. 1,71,232 (Loan- 1,56,000 + Interest- 15,232) The person was not traceable on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. It was rather found that there is an autorickshaw driver in the locality of Shri Jeevan Kumar Das. Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee. It was rather found that there is an autorickshaw driver in the locality of Shri Jeevan Kumar Das. Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. Inquiry report is silent about this person. Copies of ITR, computation and copy of bank accounts given before the inquiry officer, at Ranchi. 30 Pushpa Devi Saraf Rs. 1,41,616 (Loan- 1,30,000 + Interest- 11,616) The person was not traceable on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. It was rather found that there is an autorickshaw driver in the locality of Shri Jeevan Kumar Das. Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. Further, it is also seen that on one hand she has shown her status as house wife in the bank passbook and on the other she is showing income from business & profession. These contradictions have not been reconciled by the assessee. Inquiry report is silent about this person. Copies of ITR, computation and copy of bank accounts given before the inquiry of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duced by the assessee. It was rather found that there is an autorickshaw driver in the locality of Shri Jeevan Kumar Das. Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. Inquiry report is silent about this person. Copies of ITR, computation and copy of bank accounts given before the inquiry officer, at Ranchi. 36 Roshanlal HUF Rs. 6,15, 771 (Loan- 5,60,000 + Interest- 55,177) The person was not traceable on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. It was rather found that there is an autorickshaw driver in the locality of Shri Jeevan Kumar Das. Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. Inquiry report is silent about this person. Copies of ITR, computation and copy of bank accounts given before the inquiry officer, at Ranchi. 37 Ruhi Enterprise Rs. 75,03,040 (Loan- 73,00,000 + Interest- 2,03,040) This is a proprietorship concern of Shri Gayanendra Kumar Singh, who has neither been found nor produced by the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ders to substantiate the source of such cash deposits. Creditworthiness and genuineness not proved. Shri Ganesh Enterprises is engaged in the business of crusher at Barajamda. 40 Subodh Sinha HUF Rs. 1,59,159 (Loan- 1,45,000 + Interest- 14,159) The person has neither been found on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. Inquiry report silent about his person. Copies of ITR, computation and copy of bank accounts given before the inquiry officer, at Ranchi. 41 Subodh Sinha Rs. 2,91,806 (Loan- 1,17,000 + Interest- 1,74,806) The person has neither been found on inquiry nor produced by the assessee. Further, creditworthiness & genuineness of transactions are also not proved. Several features of Accommodation entry providers detected from the bank account statement. Inquiry report silent about his person. Copies of ITR, computation and copy of bank accounts given before the inquiry officer, at Ranchi. 42 Sumitra Devi Rs. 7,30,367 (Loan- 6,65,000 + Interest- 65,367) The person has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d copy of new address was filed before CIT (A) in respect of 8 person who were not found at the stated address as per enquiry reports. The learned counsel for the assessee referred para No. 10 of appellate order wherein the CIT (A) has examined and discussed h issue of identity, creditworthiness and analysis of bank account and genuineness of transaction. It was submitted that that as per para No. 11 of CIT (A) order the AO has not made addition in respect of person mentioned in table at para No. 11.1 observed that the AO has not made addition in respect of Serial No. 45,46,47, 49,50,51 and 52 without any discussion in the assessment order. There is no discussion authority these loans were treated as explained, whereas fact and circumstances of other creditors are same. 21. The learned counsel relied in the case of CIT v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava [2012] 21 taxmann.com 159 (Gujarat)/[2012] 81 CCH 193 Guj-HC held that Where lenders of assessee are income-tax assessees whose PAN have been disclosed, Assessing Officer cannot ask the assessee to further prove genuineness of transactions without first verifying such fact from income-tax returns of lenders. The learned counsel for the....