TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dditional evidences which were not produced by the assessee before the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings as well as in remand proceedings. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is an individual deriving income from house property and income from other sources. During the year under consideration, assessee has also shown that an immovable property situated at Vasai was sold for consideration of Rs. 16 lakhs and claimed index cost on acquisition thereon at Rs. 17,32,622/- thereby reporting long term capital loss. During the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased one immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 4 Crores on 07/05/2009. The details of payments made towards purchase of the said property were duly furnished by the assessee. The assessee submitted before the ld. AO that she had borrowed unsecured loans from the following parties which were utilized for the purpose of property:- (i) Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from M/s. Khushi Gems Pvt. Ltd.,(PAN -AADCK4106D), 802, CZ/22, Shrinathji Apt., Hathfaliya Road, Haripura, Surat-03; (ii) Rs. 1,00,00,000/,- from M/s. Kothari Impex(PAN - APTP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the asset side of his balance sheet. Similarly in the case of Mr. Sanjay Tiwari, Proprietor of Sriram Exports, the asset side of the balance sheet shows the advance given to the assessee. The ld. AO further submitted in his remand report that the case of Khushi Gems Pvt. Ltd., is with another Assessing Officer and the details of the same are being collected. The ld. CIT(A) observed in his appellate order at page 4 that another remand report was received from the new Assessing Officer of the assessee on 01/06/2015 vide letter dated 26/05/2015 wherein the Range Head i.e. Additional CIT had objected to the admission of additional evidences itself on the ground that there was failure of the assessee to produce these details before the ld. AO at the time of assessment proceedings. In the said remand report, the Additional CIT had also questioned the creditworthiness of the aforesaid three loan creditors stating they are not creditworthy to advance huge loans to the assessee. The Addl. CIT in his remand report even said that in the case of Mr. Vijay Narendra Kothari, Proprietor of M/s. Kothari Impex, though the turn over disclosed by him in his balance sheet was Rs. 208.20 Crores, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er:- 1. M/s. Shriram Exports:- The assessee borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- from the said party which was repaid in F.Y.2011-12 relevant to A.Y.2012-13 as committed. The repayment was made by issue of account payee cheques and through RTGS payments (Real Time Gross Settlement) as evident in the bank statement enclosed. The assessee also furnished the ledger copy of the accounts upto F.Y.2014-15 to prove the veracity of the transactions beyond doubt. 2. M/s. Kothari Impex:-The assessee borrowed a sum of Rs. 1 Crore out of which assessee had repaid a sum of Rs. 87 lakhs by way of RTGS on 23/11/2013 and Rs. 13 lakhs was payable as on the date of making the submission before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee further submitted the ledger copy of the concerned loan creditor for the F.Yrs. 2009-10 to 2014-15 to prove the veracity of the transactions beyond doubt. 3. Khushi Gems Pvt. Ltd:- The assessee borrowed a sum of Rs. 1 Crore from this party which was duly repaid within the agreed credit period by way of RTGS as evident in the bank statements enclosed. The assessee further submitted the ledger account copies of the said loan creditor for the F.Yrs. 2009-10 to 2014-15 to prove th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accounts of the assessee for the F.Yrs. 2009-10 to 2014-15. g. Copy of the bank statements of the concerned loan creditors by also explaining the source of source. h. Copy of bank statement of the assessee to prove that the said loans were also repaid in subsequent years by account payee cheque / RTGS. i. Copy of confirmation from the concerned loan creditors accepting the said loan transactions with the assessee. 5.1. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition by making various factual and legal observations as under:- "11.2 The situation which emerges is summarized. The AO examined the loans availed by the appellant of Rs. 1 Cr each from Kothari Impex & Khushi Gems Pvt Ltd and of Rs. 2.25 Cr from Shriram Exports. The appellant was able to produce confirmations, bank account statements and the ROIs of these 3 parties at the time of assessment. The AO however did not accept the same as he examined the source of funds in the hands of these 3 parties. The AO noted that the balance sheets of these parties were not produced, neither was their identity established. The AO held that the appellant was not able to produce the parties before him for examination and that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the loan was actually an accommodation entry. The AO has also lost sight of the fact that these loans have been subsequently repaid by the appellant through banking channels. Thus, the appellant is able to prove that not only did he take genuine loans, but the same has also been repaid. If these loans were not genuine, then there would have been a question of repayment. I find that the weight of evidence is in favor of the appellant as he has been able to satisfy all ingredients of cash credit i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions. Accordingly, I delete the addition of Rs. 4,25,00,000 made by the AO on this count." 5.2. None of the aforesaid factual observations recorded by the ld. CIT(A) had been controverted by the ld. DR before us with cogent evidences. We find that the ld. DR reiterated the contentions made by the ld. AO in his assessment order. We find after that, much water has flown in the instant case by way of additional evidences and by way of two remand reports from the ld. AO etc. 5.3. We find that the revenue had raised an additional ground that the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee. In ....