TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 274
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onfirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 3,26,715/- despite the fact that the credits having appeared in earlier years no addition u/s 68 is called for. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO rejecting the explanation and evidences filed by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness as well as the identities of the lenders. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in running business of footwear manufacturing in the name of a proprietary concern, M/s Sun Infotech Asia. The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 30/09/2015 declaring total income of Rs. 6,11,180/-. The return of income filed was selected for scrutiny assessment and assessment proceedings were commenced by way of issue of statutory notices under Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short 'the Act'). The initial notices were complied, however, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that during the period of the assessment proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ittal (HUF) as on 31.03.2015. During appellate proceedings a confirmation was submitted from Atul Mittal (HUF) for confirming such balance. Alongwith this, a photo copy of bank statement has been provided, wherein certain cash deposits are reflected and also shown the money paid to the appellant. It is interesting to note that this is the HUF of appellant himself and no source of income has been provided for such HUF to generate and justify these cash deposit. Further, the confirmation is not duly signed by the appellant in his capacity as individual and the address in the bank account is mentioned as B-2/7, Main Wali Nagar, Delhi-87, which is not the address mentioned by the appellant in this appeal." 2.4 Regarding, credit shown from Mrs Sunita Mittal, he sustained the addition, observing as under: "6.4 I have gone through the submissions/documents provided by the AR of appellant. It is observed from the confirmation given by Mrs. Sunita Mittal to support the said deposit in the hands of appellant that it Is only a confirmation of outstanding balance. It is stated that Smt. Sunita Mittal has received these funds from Mr. Flarikrishan Agarwal and Arjun Gupta (HUF). On g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....e. no certificate of documents, which were filed before the lower authorities. The learned DR also appeared through videoconferencing and relied on the order of the learned CIT(A). 4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. First of all, before us, the learned counsel submitted that unsecured loan of Rs. 43,46,970/- was outstanding in the books of the assessee as on 31/03/2015 from following three parties: (a) Atul Mittal HUF : Rs. 2,25,000/- (b) MD Shaukat Ali: Rs. 1,01,715/-. (c) Sunita Mittal: Rs. 40,20,255/-. 4.1 The learned counsel submitted that out of the above unsecured loans from Atul Mittal and MD Shaukat Ali were not received during the year. According to her, as there was no transaction with above two parties during the year under consideration and the balance as on 31/03/2015 stood the same as of the opening balance, because of that reason, the addition of these amounts under section 68 of the Act was not justified. The learned counsel refer to the confirmation ledger of the parties filed at page No. 41 and 42 of the paper-book. 4.2 On perusal of the order of the lower authorities,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The learned counsel in synopsis has filed source of each amount of the credit along with confirmation from M/s HK Agrwal, ITR return of HK Agrwal, Confirmation from M/s Arjun Gupta (HUF), ITR Return of Arjun Gupta (HUF) and Kotak Mahindra Bank statement of Mrs Sunita Mittal. Major source on unsecured loan advanced has been explained as return of loan given earlier from Mr. HK Agrwal along with interest, Loan recived from Arjun Gupta(HUF) and salary received from M/s ICA International Private Limited. The same explanation was submitted before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) found discrepancy in the confirmation of Atul Mittal (HUF). He found that the loan re-payment was made to Mrs. Sunita Muittal on 25/02/2015, still the outstanding balance of Rs. 6,70,000/- was shown on 31/03/2015. He also noted that the interest income of Rs. 2,02,500/- to Mrs. Sunita Mittal was shown in the confirmation filed by Mr. HK Agrwal, but the same was not included by Mrs. Sunita Mittal in the computation of her income, a copy of which has been filed on page 25 of the of the paper book. He also observed that no statement of the affairs of Mrs Sunita Mittal had been provided to justify the amount ....