AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... engaged in the business of investment & trading in shares. The assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 30.09.2012 declaring loss of Rs. 8,90,53,176/- The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and thereafter assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 28.03.2015 and the total loss was determined at Rs. 8,16,32,580/-. 2.2. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.04.2017 in Appeal No. Del/CIT(A)-5/0138/2015- 16, granted partial relief to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. That the order o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,932/- disallowed the balance amount of Rs. 8,77,755/- u/s 14A of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal. 7. Before us, the learned AR reiterated the submissions made before AO and CIT(A) and further submitted that assessee had earned tax free dividend income to the tune of Rs. 65,932/- and had suo motto disallowed of Rs. 65,932/- u/s. 14A of the Act. He submitted that it is a settled law that the disallowance u/s. 14A cannot exceed the exempt income and in support of his aforesaid contention he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said decisions of Hon'ble High Court direct the AO to delete the disallowance in excess of the suo moto amount of Rs. 65,932/- disallowed by the assessee. Thus the ground of the assessee is allowed. 10. Ground no 2 is with respect to addition u/s. 68 of Rs. 8,84,449/-. 11. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee had received unsecured loans of Rs. 8,84,449/- from Madan Mohan Sarda. The assessee was asked to filed the details of unsecured loan along with the confirmations and prove identity and genuineness of the transaction. AO noted that in the absence of any documentary evidence furnished by the assessee to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction, the amount was considered to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom there he pointed that during the year under consideration the lender had Gross Total Income of Rs. 7,86,917/- which was much more than the amount advanced and therefore it cannot be said that the lender did not have the capacity to advance the loan. He further pointed to the copy of the bank statement of the lender placed in the paper book and from the statement he pointed out that out of the various transactions reflected in the bank statement, CIT(A) has only picked up one transaction of receipt of Rs. 25 lacs from Shri Himant Singka and advancing of the same amount to Shri Raja Ram Saraf to conclude that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender was not proved. Before us learned AR further stated that in view of the fact tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. To discharge the burden u/s. 68 the assessee is required to offer explanation which must be backed by some reliable evidence. In the light of the applicable provisions of S.68 of the Act when the facts of the present case are seen, it is evident that in the books of the lender, shows that the lender had advanced Rs. 5,14,800/- in earlier years and during the year under consideration, it had lent to assessee Rs. 7,80,000/- through banking channels. It is also a fact that on the amounts received as loan, assessee had paid interest and had also deducted TDS on the interest paid. The factum of lending the money through banking channels is not doubted by the Revenue. Further the identity and capacity of the lender is proved by the fact tha....