TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3, Coimbatore dated 16.01.2020 in ITBA/APL/S/250/2019- 20/1023925956(1), for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act while computing the taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 68 of the Act had no application to the facts of the case especially in view of the discharge of initial onus/burden by furnishing the relevant documents/details by the appellant at various stages of the assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the assessment of deemed income u/s 68 of the Act should be assigned to a head of income for computation purposes while further ought to have appreciated that the assessment of the disputed sum should be reckoned either under the head 'income from business' or 'income from other sources', thereby negating the decision to presume the addition u/s 68 of the Act as standalone addition. 8. The ITO failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles natural justice would be nullity in law." 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Mr. P.K.Duraisamy on 13.03.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the parties, however disputed genuineness of transaction by holding that the bank has credited two different cheques with two different addresses, two different PANs, two different account numbers and two different names together. Further, narration given in the bank account statement is not self-explanatory. Therefore, he opined that the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transaction and hence, sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unsecured loan u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the order passed by learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the assessee has proved identity and creditworthiness of the parties. Further, the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to fact that the assessee has proved identity and creditworthiness of loan creditors, which is evident from fact that the learned CIT(A) has accepted fact of identity and creditworthiness of parties. The only dispute is with regard to genuineness of transactions. According to the learned CIT(A), although unsecured loans claimed to have been received by cheques, but on perusal of Axis bank statement, there is no clarity from whom said credit was received including cheque numbers, address and PAN. We have gone through reasons given by the learned CIT(A) to doubt genuineness of transaction and we ourselves do not subscribe to reasons given....