TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....T. Act, 1961. 2. The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide order dated 23.12.2011. While framing the assessment, the AO observed that the assessee had made investment in an agricultural land the source of investment was stated to be source of the source of loan taken to the other persons one of the loan of Rs. 43 lakhs was claimed to have been taken from Smt. Anita Kumari on 1/07/2008 this loan was doubted by the AO and therefore made an addition of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the summon was issued, it was un served of Smt. Anita Kumari on the address given by the assessee in confirmation and he proceeded to make addition on this account as unexplained investment by the assessee. However, Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions and the remand report of the AO decided issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under:- "2.5 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order, appellant's written submission; AOs remand report and appellant's rejoinder. Assessing officer made the addition of Rs. 43 lakhs received by way of loan by the appellant on the ground that creditworthiness of the lender was not proved. Assessing officer summoned the lender who is staying outstation and did not appear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f lender is not proved. Appellant argued in rejoinder that complete onus was discharged by submitting not only confirmation, bank statement of the lender but also affidavits from lender and her husband explaining the source of money lent to the appellant. It is not in dispute that lender's husband sold agriculture land and out of such sale proceeds, he withdrew cash to the extent of Rs. 56 lakhs from the bank account. Out of this cash withdrawal, lender deposited in her bank account and the same was given by way of loan to the appellant. There cannot be any proof with regard to source of cash deposit out of cash withdrawal from the bank apart from the affidavit of both the persons. It was further submitted by the appellant that if so....