TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 801
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....various parties without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to prove the identity of the loan creditors, genuineness of the transaction and their creditworthiness." 3. During the course of hearing, learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer, whereas learned A.R. of the assessee relied on the order of the CIT(A). 4. However, on perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we observe that the assessee had taken following fresh loans in the assessment year under consideration: Sl. No. Name of the loan creditor Loan amount(Rs.) 1. P. Nainmal & Co. 5,00,000 2. Shaila Enterprises 15,00,000 3. M M Trading Co. 5,00,000 4. Carolyn Construction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount of loans comes to Rs. 35 lakhs. However, the AO made the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs in respect of the said loans. 6. Further, the assessee has shown the payment of interest of Rs. 2,10,000 to the above parties. Since the AO considered the said loans as bogus, he also treated the said interest of Rs. 2,10,000 as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. Thus, the AO made the addition of Rs. 32,10,000 though the correct amount should have been Rs. 37,10,000. 7. We observe that in the first appeal, the CIT(A) has deleted the said amount, inter alia, by observing that the assessee filed return of income alongwith bank statement of the loan creditors and further the assessee filed the confirmation from all the loan creditor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and the assessee will, if necessary, produce the said parties before him to establish the identity to the satisfaction of the department. 9. Considering the above facts and observations of the authorities below, we are of the consideration view that the matter requires reconsideration by the CIT(A) to establish the genuineness, creditworthiness as well as identity of the loan creditors. Hence, we restore this issue to the file of the CIT(A) by setting aside his impugned order for his fresh consideration. Ground No.1 is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Ground No.2 is as under: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in deleti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove facts and was asked as to why the purchases shown in respect of above parties, should not be treated as bogus/inflated purchases. The AO stated that the representative of the assessee shown his inability to provide the details called for. The AO has further stated that the assessee failed to produce these parties for verification. Thus, the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases claimed. Hence, the AO considered the said purchases aggregating to Rs. 82,95,347 shown by the assessee as bogus and inflated. Therefore, he added the said amount of Rs. 82,95,347 to the income of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 13. The CIT(A) has deleted the addition made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e filed new facts before the CIT(A) which were considered by him without giving opportunity of hearing to the AO. In view of above facts and considering the orders of the authorities below, we consider it prudent to set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to his file to decide the issue afresh after giving adequate opportunities to both the sides by way of a speaking order. Ground No.2 is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Ground No.3 is as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 42,03,426 made by the AO in respect of penalty charges." 16. The relevant facts are that the assessee is a civil contractor. Duri....