TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... previous year's loan of Rs. 2,83,28,244/-from various persons who are happened to be the Managing Director's, Family Members and Relatives. The assessee was requested to file the copy of the confirmation, bank account details, Return of Income, mode of payment, etc. However the assessee filed copy of the Return of Income only and other details not filed, thereby the Assessing Officer cannot verify the genuineness of the unsecured loan from these parties and therefore made addition u/s. 68 of the Act as follows: SI. No. Name of the party Amount of unsecured loan Interest paid Total 1 Ganpatraj C. Salecha, Indl 1,43,12,027 - 1,43,12,027 2. Ganpatraj C. Salecha, HUF 1,00,000 24,463 1,24,463 3 Deepak G. Salecha 57,37,057 - 57,37,057 4 Smt. Neelam D. Salecha 6,50,000 48,047 6,98,047 5 Leeladevi G. Salecha 38,79,530 85,672 39,65,202 6 Plasto Processors 15,00,000 - 15,00,000 7 Mamta R. Bafna 1,19,060 72,843 1,91,903 8 Rajesh DG. Bafna 8,00,000 - 8,00,000 Total 2,70,97,674 2,31,023 2,73,28,657 2.2. The assessing officer also disallowed the interest on the above lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es pointed out by AO in remand report clearly prove that appellant has failed to prove genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of depositors. Reliance is also placed on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Sitaram Ramchanddas Pate! Vs ITO 95 Taxman.com 290 wherein it is held as under: "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Gifts) - Assessment year 2006-07 - In course of assessment, Assessing Officer found that assessee had deposited certain amount in bank which Remained unexplained - Assessee's case was that said amount represented gifts received from various parties - Assessing Officer having rejected assessee's explanation, made addition of said amount under section 68 -Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal doubted capacity of concerned persons, who were alleged to have given gift - Accordingly, addition made by Assessing Officer confirmed - Whether when assessee failed to prove capacity of concerned persons who alleged to have given unsecured loan and/or gifts, it could not be concluded that Tribunal had committed any error in confirming additions made by Assessing Officer -Held, yes [Para 6] [In favour of revenue]" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.65,94,000/- in the- case of Ganpatraj Salecha, and loan amount of Rs. 11,20,000/- in the case of Deepak Salceha, which were found genuine by the AO, as source of the said loan has been explained with supporting documentary evidences. For the balance amount of Rs.1,93,83,674/-, AO has observed in the remand report that assesses was not able to prove the genuineness of the transactions of the said loan amount. The appellant has failed to discharge this onus. The assessing officer has given detailed reasons in the assessment order as well as in remand report for coming to this conclusion (as discussed supra) which is not repeated here. In view of various discrepancies pointed out by the assessing officer in remand report, the appellant was not able to prove the genuineness of the transactions as discussed above. The appellant has failed to discharge this onus. The addition up to Rs.1,93,83,674/- made u/s.68 of the I.T. Act by the assessing officer is confirmed. The related grounds of the appellant are partly allowed. Further, The AO has made disallowance of Rs.2,31,023/- being interest payment credited to the respect of accounts of the 8 entries (unsecured loan) from the total in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count of creditors and transcations of journal entries added are confirmed by him. It be so held now and additions be deleted. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 1,93,83,674/-retained by the CIT(Appeals) deserves to be deleted. The same be deleted. 6. The Ld CIT(Appeals) also erred both in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of interest expenses in respect of disallowance relating to addition confirmed including payment of interest on earlier deposit. The disallowance being wholly unjustified be deleted and interest expenses be allowed in full. 7. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not allowing the appeal in full. 5. Today is the 13th time of hearing of this appeal. From 20th December, 2021, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Today also none appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notice to the assessee. In initial days of hearing, Mr. D.K. Parikh, Chartered Accountant represented on behalf of the assessee however we do not find any Authorization by the assessee in favour of Mr. D.K. Parikh. In fact on 05.01.2021, Mr. D.K. Parikh by his letter stated that he has instruction to appear on behalf of the assessee and....