2021 (4) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has erred by considering unsecured loans of Rs. 88,08,548/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Income Tax Act, 1961, 1961. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) stated to be engaged in the business of F & O. On perusal of return, A.O. noted that the assessee has shown his total income at Rs. 1,27,26,030/-, however, after setting off of brought forwarded losses pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11 of Rs. 5,62,16,190/-, the taxable total income for the year under consideration was declared at NIL. In this case, there was also information on AIR regarding assessee's deposits of cash to the tune of Rs. 90.80 lakhs in the accounts held with Bank of India. It was also found that the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....), Bandra (E), etc. and amount charged. However, no any detail showing nature of services rendered, proof for receipt of fees etc. has been filed in support of claim. Even the basis details viz. the full address of the person, PAN has not been filed. Thus, the primary onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the identity of these persons has not been discharged by the assessee. 5. Upon the assessee's appeal, the ld. CIT(A) referred to the additional evidences submitted by the assessee. He noted that in remand, the A.O. has submitted not to admit the additional evidence. However, the ld. CIT(A) accepted them and proceeded to accept the same. 6. He adjudicated the issue after accepting the concession by the assessee. He ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... there have been certain cash deposits after which cheques have been issued to the appellant. A copy of this remand report was handed over to the appellant requesting him for a rejoinder. 6.1.2 During the course of hearing on 09.06.2016 the AR submitted that confirmation from three unrelated parties viz. Shri Jignesh Sheth - Rs. 3,58,000, Prakash Kadam - Rs. 7,00,000 & Pratibha Kadam - Rs. 24,00,000 which were submitted as additional evidence could not be substantiated by him during the remand proceedings. The AR, therefore, conceded that these loans cannot be substantiated by him. Similarly, in the case of Nutan Vora, the AR conceded the matter. From the above, it could be seen that the appellant has conceded that he is n....