TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal: The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- considering the same as accommodation entry, such addition is requested to be deleted. 3. The solitary issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs. 12 lacs on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 4. There was a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act dated 27 September 2012 in the case of Manoj Aggarwal group of cases at Palanpur. During the search proceedings it was discovered that among other companies, the company namely ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a paper book running from pages 1 to 55 and contended that the assessee has received only 6 lakhs of rupees as unsecured loan from the company namely Monisha Infrastructure private Ltd dated 1 December 2011 which was returned on 6 January 2012. As such, the repayment of the loan was effected on 6th of January 2012 but the same was failed and therefore there were double entries reflecting in the bank statement. One entry was of the repayment and the other entry was of the cancellation of such repayment which was shown in the deposit column of the bank statement. But the revenue authorities has misunderstood these entries. The learned AR in support of his contention drew our attention on the bank statement which is placed on pages 53 to 54 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee in the year under consideration was refunded in the same financial year. It implies that the assessee was not the beneficiary of the loan received by it as alleged by the AO. Thus, we can assume that the impugned transaction was the business transactions between the assessee and the loan parties. In this regard, we find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Rohini builders reported in 256 ITR 360 has observed as under: "The genuineness of the transaction is proved by the fact that the payment to the assessee as well as repayment of the loan by the assessee to the depositors is made by account payee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditors by account payee cheques." 9.2 Ha....