TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 754
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the order against the Assessee on 30.03.2022 and received by assessee on 31-03-2022. Moreover, as per sub section (3) of Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Assessee was having 60 days time to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It is hereby submitted that the Assessee filed an appeal through the online portal of the ITAT on 31.05.2022, which is within the said timeline. Therefore, the Assessee was of the opinion that he could file the copy prior to 30.06.2022 and the same would not be treated as barred by limitation.However, I humbly request to you to kindly condone the delay in the instant case. Right after filing of such appeal, the Assessee received an e-mail from the e-filing team of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai, where it was categorically mentioned that the Assessee can file a physical appeal before Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur on or before 30.06.2022. Copy of the e-mail is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-1. Therefore, the Assessee was of the opinion that he could file the copy prior to 30.06.2022 and the same would not be treated as barred by limitation. However, I humbly request....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred this second appeal before us on the grounds as raised and reiterated here in above. Ground no. 1 relates to the addition made for an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- as per provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 8. Apropos to this ground the related fact is that the assessee Mr. Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya, is the Managing Director of M/s Amit Colonizers Ltd. (M/s ACL). During the A.Y. 2012-13, assessee has shown salary income of Rs. 9,00,000/- from company and income from other sources of Rs. 7,16,809/- (interest from bank 11809/- and commission income of Rs. 7,05,000/-). During the period under consideration, assessee has made investment in the following two properties. In the course of the assessment proceeding, assessee filed details of the sources of these investments. On the observation of the same, it has been gathered that assessee has substantial shareholding of the company i.e. M/s Amit Colonizers Ltd. i.e.. as on 31.03.2012 - 63.63% shareholding and as on 31.03.2011 - 46.19% shareholding, in the above-mentioned company.It was also noted that the company M/s Amit Colonizers Ltd. is a limited company and it was having Reserve & Surplus, as on 31.03.2012 Rs. 2,59,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee vide its letter dated 20.02.2015, submitted his point-wise reply stating that the assessee has received security deposit of 1,50,00,000/- in the regular course of business from the company under MOU development agreement for construction of flats and commercial shops on the property under his ownership. The Company has disclosed true character of the transaction under consideration by adding a new sub head as "Security Deposit" which further categorized whether it is secured or unsecured and whether it is good or doubtful complying the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. Major Head does not change the character of the financial transaction if the sub head otherwise speaks true one. We have already furnished the details of security deposits covering other security deposits also. Therefore, it is not justified to consider the security deposit as loans and advances simply on the basis that it has been disclosed under the head Long term loans and advances ignoring the disclosure requirement under the particulars sub head of the schedule III format prescribed under the Companies Act. Against this contention the ld. AO noted that the assessee's logic that merely by categorizing any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and construction. It is better opportunity available to the company to expand its business by accepting the proposal of the managing director unanimously, it was agreed that work of construction of residential flats and commercial shops on the said property should be taken up immediately on such verbal terms and conditions as mutually agreed upon between the company and assessee in the meeting of M/s. ACL. The terms and conditions as mutually decided in the board meeting shall be taken in writing through MOU at convenient time of both the parties. The certified copy of the said resolution was placed on record. Against the submission of the assessee, the ld. AO noted that MOU dated 04.08.2021 does not have any evidential value in its own, being unregistered, non-witness and signed by the same individual in both of the capacity, i.e. in first party as well as in second party. However, no minutes of this so called meeting, held on 04.08.20211, in order to discuss the proposal of director Mr. Vijay Kumar, provided by the ld. AR to support its submission made. Without any documentary evidence, the assessee is just trying a making a story to established that all the director of the board....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the company, who had given declaration that the assessee has purchased property at 302, Ghategate bazaar and the assessee wants to develop this plot with the company. Again there is reference of one Bhawani Singh Nayak declaring that this property will be registered on 08/08/2011 in the name of assessee. Surprisingly, no signatures of this Bhawani Singh Nayak are available on the so called "certified copy of resolution". The sign of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Vijayvergiya (family member of the assessee) is available on second paper i.e. not company's letter head. Thus it is evident that the so called MOU is full of error, inconsistency and improbabilities, as discussed above. In nutshell the so-called MOU is full of inconsistency, also lacking essential characteristics to make it a genuine in nature. 5. Most surprisingly, in the so called certified copy of resolution, nothing is mentioned about extending any security deposit to be given to the Assesses, and not the arrangements of this so called security deposit to b given to assessee. This fact also proves that the so-called story of security deposit is an after thought to give a colour of routine business transaction, to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally open to the assessee to create any legal document, at any point of time (real time or ante-dated) in such a manner which suits to him/them, in all respects. It is also pertinent to note that the assessee was the only signatory of MOU, in both the capacities. It is also a factual matter that the property was purchased with the initial payment of Rs. 50 lacs received, on 04/08/2011. from the company. Subsequently out of total cost of the land the assessee paid for the property i.e. Rs. 1,83,00,000/ the company had advanced of Rs. 1,50,00,000/ which amount to almost 81% of cost of the property. This proves that it was the company, which has facilitated the assessee to acquire the ownership rights of the property which was later on offered by him to the same company, in the joint venture with the company itself. Thus, the company has allowed him to have stake in a JV, for which the assessee has not contributed in any manner. This sort of favour is possible only in the in-house business affairs, not in a genuine financial deal. All the above discussion, makes it crystal clear that the so called MOU is nothing but a post-created document, much after the dates 04/08/2011 and 08/08/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roperty, colonization, construction, property development under development agreement, etc. It has provided security deposit in the regular course of its business under MOU for construction of flats and commercial shops on the property whose ownership presently lies with the assessee. It is also important to note here that the payment of security deposit of 1,50,00,000/ has been made on different dates ranging from 04.08.2011 to 23.01.2012 to the assessee as per Clause No. 2 of the MOU. The assessee has received only 50,00,000/ on 04.08.2011 from the company against the total agreed amount of security deposit while he has made total payment of 1,61,00,000 against the property up to 04.08.2011. The details of payment against property have been mentioned in the registry which is reproduced here for ready reference:- Date Name of Seller Amount 25.12.2010 Cumulatively in cash 21,000/- 27.12.2010 Mohd. Yusuf 2,50,000/- 27.12.2010 Mohd. Yusuf 2,50,000/- 04.08.2011 Rashidan Begum 37,00,000/- 04.08.2011 Mohd. Yusuf 33,89,500/- 04.08.2011 Rashidan Begum 33,00,000/- 04.08.2011 Modh. Arif 20,00,000/- 04.08.2011 Mohd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, who is managing director of the company itself.As can be seen from the details submitted by the assessee that funds of Rs. 1.50 crore were paid by company to the assessee. during the period from 04/08/2011 to 23/01/2012 (including equity share of Rs. 22,69,300/-) and the funds of Rs. 50 lacs had received on 04/08/2011 were paid to the seller parties at the time of registry of documents but the balance funds, which were paid by the company to the assessee, in due course of time, were utilized by the assessee in purchase of other property, at Plot no. 90, Shivaji Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur. This clearly proves that it was only the assessee who enjoyed the benefits from the money so received from the company M/s ACL., in the name of security deposit.He had taken funds from the company for initial payment of property and from the same, he could be able to raise further funds as bank loan and became owner of property at 302, Ghat gate Bazar, Jaipur, for which he made joint venture MOU with the company to make a business cum residential complex in the profit sharing ratio of 50% 50% and from rest of the funds out of so called security deposit has helped him to became owner of one more....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E NO. 1. Copy of MOU dated 04-08-2011. 1-7 2. Copy of Sale deed dated 08-08-2011. 8-31 3. Copy of sale agreement date 25-12-2010 32-40 4. Copy of confirmation of Creditors. 41-44 5. Copy of account of WIP ACL MALL GHATGATE BAZAR, along with ledger of sub accounts in the books of M/s Amit Colonizers Ltd 45-68 6. Copy of Resolution dated 04-08-2011 passed in board meeting of M/s Amit Colonizers Ltd for MOU for property development. 69-70 7. Copy of reply filed to ACIT, Circle-7 during assessment proceedings dated 31-10-2014. 71-73 8. Copy of reply filed to ACIT, Circle-7 during assessment proceedings dated 19-01-2015. 74-76 9. Copy of reply filed to ACIT, Circle-7 during assessment proceedings dated 28-01-2015. 77-78 10. Copy of reply filed to ACIT, Circle-7 during assessment proceedings dated 09-02-2015. 79-82 11. Copy of reply filed to ACIT, Circle-7 during assessment proceedings dated 20-02-2015. 83-92 12. Copy of reply filed to ACIT, Circle-7 during assessment proceedings dated 10-03-2015. 93-97 13. Copy of MOU dated 30-11-2011 98-100 14. Copy of ITR along wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ics Ltd. 127 taxmann.com 820 ( Gujarat HC) (2021) 12. We have taken note of the findings giving for the judgments relied upon by the revenue and finds that all the judgments are related to a company were public was not substantially interested and also related as to whether the deemed dividend is to be taxed in the hands for the recipient company or the issuing company, therefore, the facts of these case and the case law relied upon are different on facts and are not applicable in ground No. 1 raised by the assessee. We have also persuaded the findings recorded by the ld. AO as well as the findings of the ld. CIT(A), the findings are in the nature of factual aspects. From the orders of the lower authoritiesbench noted that the assessee has already executed an agreement to sale for the impugned property on 25.12.2010. When the registration of the property scheduled on 08.08.2011 the assessee has invested a sum of Rs. 1,61,00,000/- on this property. The company till 04.08.2011 given only advance of Rs. 50,00,000/- in accordance with the MOU though the property was scheduled to be registered in the name of the assessee on 08.08.2011. Thus, looking to these non-controverted fact pla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of April, 1965; (ii) any advance or loan made to a shareholder or the said concern by a company in the ordinary course of its business, where the lending of money is a substantial part of the business of the company ; (iii) any dividend paid by a company which is set off by the company against the whole or any part of any sum previously paid by it and treated as a dividend within the meaning of sub-clause (e), to the extent to which it is so set off; (iv) any payment made by a company on purchase of its own shares from a shareholder in accordance with the provisions of section 77A14a of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (v) any distribution of shares pursuant to a demerger by the resulting company to the shareholders of the demerged company (whether or not there is a reduction of capital in the demerged company). Explanation 1.-The expression "accumulated profits", wherever it occurs in this clause, shall not include capital gains arising before the 1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.-The expression "accumulated profits" in sub-clauses (a), (b), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cified in the declaration ; or (ac) if it is a mutual benefit finance company, that is to say, a company which carries on, as its principal business, the business of acceptance of deposits from its members and which is declared by the Central Government under section 620A^10 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), to be a Nidhi or Mutual Benefit Society ; or (ad) if it is a company, wherein shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a further right to participate in profits) carrying not less than fifty per cent of the voting power have been allotted unconditionally to, or acquired unconditionally by, and were throughout the relevant previous year beneficially held by, one or more co-operative societies ; (b) if it is a company which is not a private company as defined in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)^10a, and the conditions specified either in item (A) or in item (B) are fulfilled, namely :- (A) shares in the company (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a further right to participate in profits) were, as on the last day of the relevant previous year, liste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ency. Without going much into the point since the matter is being examined on the merits we need not adjudicate or decide the issue on this ground alone. The provisions of section 2(18)(b)(B) are as under: " shares in the company (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a further right to participate in profits) carrying not less than fifty per cent. of the voting power have been allotted unconditionally to, or acquired unconditionally by, and were throughout the relevant previous year beneficially held by- (a) The Government, or (b) A corporation established by a Central, State or provincial Act, (c) any company to which this clause applies or any subsidiary F company of such company if the whole of the share capital of such subsidiary company has been held by the parent company or by its nominees throughout the previous year." The company in which the public are substantially interested is a company where shares in the company carrying not less than 50 per cent. of the voting power have been allotted unconditionally to, or acquired unconditionally by and were throughout the relevant previous year b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....public were substantially interested within the meaning of the Explanation to section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It was held that in the absence of evidence to show that the directors had been exercising their power under article 37 freely and virtually eliminated the element of free transferability of the shares as provided in the articles of the company and in the absence of restriction in any other articles of the company interfering with the free transfer of shares by one shareholder to another, the mere existence of an article like article 37 would not affect the free transferability of the shares within the meaning of the Explanation to section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee-company was, therefore, regarded as one in which the public were substantially interested. It was held that article 37 did not confer any uncontrolled or unrestricted discretion upon the directors to refuse to register the transfer of shares in a given case; in other words, the directors could not act arbitrarily or capriciously. The power conferred by such an article was of a fiduciary nature, which had to be exercised by the directors in the best interests of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be determined in the manner as provided under rule 11UA of I.T. Rules, 1962. As the assessee has received shares of Amit Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. @ face value of Rs. 10/- whereas the fair market value of these shares as on 31.03.2012 comes @ 47/-. The difference in the face value and fair market value of the shares is (47-10) Rs. 37.The total number of shares, received by the assessee are 2,26,930. Accordingly, the difference in value of total number of shares comes to 226930*37= 83,96,410/-. In view of the above, the ld. AR vide order sheet entry dated 27.02.2015 was asked to show cause as to why the deemed consideration of Rs. 83,96,410/- received by assessee, over above of the face value of equity shares may not be taxed u/s 56(2)(vii)(C) of the Income Tax act, 1961. 16. Against this assessee contended that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act uses the wording "receives any property". It means the intension of law is clear that there should be an existing property both in the hands of a person who gives it and a person who receives it. It is further supported by clause (d) of explanation given in the said section wherein the word property has been explained to mean ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the ld. AO the right to issue shares is itself a property, well covered under the meaning of property and the said transaction is clearly covered as Transfer of Property and the same was considered as income of the assessee accordingly. 17. Being aggrieved from the said addition made by the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The findingsof the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is reproduced as under:- " Ground No. 2(a) This ground relates to addition of Rs. 83,96,410/- under section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. The appellant submitted that "the provision of section56(2)(vii) are applicable on the receipt of any property, meaning thereby receipt of existing property and this provision is not applicable on the fresh allotment of Equity shares. Since, in this case the alleged shares were not in existence before the allotment of fresh shares and therefore, addition is bad in law". The Ld. Assessing Officer has calculated the income from other sources u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) based on the fair market value of unquoted equity share as per rule 11UA . I find no infirmity in computation of the Ld. Assessing Officer. The argument of the appellant th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ster of the individual (iii) Brother or sister of the spouse of the individual. (iv) Brother or sister of either of the parents of the individual (v) Any lineal ascendant or descendant of the individual; (vi) Any lineal ascendant or descendant of the spouse of the individual (vii) Spouse of the person referred to in clause The Hon'ble ITAT has further discussed the issue that whether it is fresh allotment of shares or existing allotment of shares. The Hon'ble ITAT has also discussed that whether tax to be paid by the share holder or the company. As per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)C there is no binding i.e. fresh allotment or existing allotment of shares. Further, the tax has to be paid by the share holder as per section 56(2)(vii)C. The provision of section 56(2)(vii) are as under:- "56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head Income from other sources if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14. items A to E. (2) In particular, and without prejudic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....since the explanation (e) of section 56(2)(vii) which provides that in case of HUF, any member thereof falls in the definition of relative, as the shares allotted to the assessee to the extent of 95.35% was from the interest of his relatives, the same ought not be subject to tax and the company since it is Private Limited company and holding the majority of shares by the relatives , where the assesee himself the karta is Director and member of HUF holding major shares in the company. The shares have been allotted on 31.03.2014 to the assesse instead of allotting shares to all the existing shareholders and thus even if it is assumed that the shareholders to whom shares were not allotted have given up their right of allotment in shares to other shareholders, it is a case of transfer of right in shares by one relative to another relative and therefore also section 56(2)(vii)(c) would not get attracted. B. whether there is a difference between allotment of shares and receipt of shares ? We appreciate the view and argumentplaced by the Ld AR for assessee that the company has allotted the shares to an existing shareholder. This is not akin to receipt of shares in as muc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the action of receiving something or the fact of its being received whereas allotment is defined as the portion or share of something. For receipt of share there should be shares in existence and a person holding such share transferring it to another person.There is no dispute that existing shareholders prior to fresh allotment was the assessee and his relatives and the provisionsof section 56(2)(viii)(c)(ii) shall not apply in case of money or any property received from any close relative .In the present case it is fresh allotment of shares. 13. We are of the opinion discussing the above issues and respectfully following the view taken by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in case of ACIT vs. Venkanna Choudhary [2020] 180 ITD 166 (Visakhapatnam-Trib.) dated 30-09-2019 facts and submissions are also identical to the facts and submissions and the relevant paras are as under:- "10. We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, the assessee has acquired fresh allotment of shares from M/s Sardar Projects (P) Ltd. The company has allotted the shares of 4,25,000 @ 10 each on 5th April, 2013 and 9,05,000 shares @ 10 each on 26th March, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een close relatives are excluded for the purpose of deeming income under s. 56(2)(viii)(c)(ii) of that Act. This view is upheld by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kumar Pappu Singh (supra). For the sake of convenience and clarity, we extract the relevant part of the order this Tribunal in para 14 which reads as under:- "14. The assessee has only applied for shares which were allotted by the company. The contention of the Revenue is that since there is no relation between the company and the assessee there is no case for invoking the explanation of relative to exempt the assessee from taxing the excess fair market value under the head 'Income from other sources'. Whereas, the contention of the assessee is that all the shareholders are relatives. The transaction between the close relatives is not taxable under the head 'Income from other sources' under s. 56(2) of the Act and hence, the s. 56(2)(vii)(c) has no application. We have gone through the provisions of 56(2)(vii)(c) and this provision was brought as an anti-abuse measure, seeks to tax the understatement of consideration as the income in the hands of the recipient (of the corresponding asset) as against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 92 (Chennai) also taken the similar view in respect of excess share premium for the transactions between the relatives which required to be taxed under s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act." 11. In the instant case, there is no dispute that existing shareholders prior to fresh allotment was the assessee and his brother Mr. Y. Ramesh Chandra and whatever excess benefit was passed on to the assessee was out of the interest of share holding held by his brother Mr. Y. Ramesh Chandra, hence, the provisions of s. 56(2)(viii)(c)(ii) shall not apply in case of money or any property received from any close relative. The definition of relative as mentioned in proviso to Expln. (e) of s. 56(2)(vii) as under : "(e) 'relative' means,- (i) in case of an individual- (A) spouse of the individual; (B) brother or sister of the individual; (C) brother or sister of the spouse of the individual; (D) brother or sister of either of the parents of the individual; (E) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the individual; (F) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the spouse of the individual; (G) spouse of the person referred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p Duty Charges) b. 90, Shivaji Nagar, Jaipur - Rs. 14720542/-(14280000+ 440542 stamp duty charges) During the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee was asked to submit the copy of these purchase deeds. The assessee submitted the same. On perusal of these deeds it is noticed that photocopy of back side pages were not given by the assessee. Apparently, it noticed that the stamp duty expenses are at lower side Therefore, vide letter dated 09/02/2015, the assessee was asked to furnish details of complete registry expenses and to explain the source of expenditure incurred in this regard. Vide reply letter dated 20/02/2015, the assessee submitted that "the value of stamp papers of Rs. 3,50,000/- and Rs. 3,25,000/- in both the properties has left to be included in the books of account due to fault/ mistake of the accountant. The accountant understood the registry charges inclusive of stamp value due to which this mistake has incurred. We are enclosing herewith revised balance sheet as on 31/03/2012 incorporating the value of stamp papers..........., Reply of the assessee has been considered. Admittedly stamp duty expenses of Rs. 6,75,000/- (3,50,000+ 3,25,000) ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce sheet, this bonafide mistake happen and this was later rectified". It is find that the reply of the appellant is nothing but an afterthought .Where the books of accounts were maintained and balance sheet was drawn,no such omission are explainable. In view of the same, I agree with the findings of the Ld. Assessing Officer and this ground of appeal is, hereby, dismissed. 23. On this issue the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that it was the mistake of accountant and the amount was incurred out of cash balance available with the assessee. Since, the purchases were made on 31st March 2012 i.e. on the last date of Balance sheet, this bonafide mistake happen and this was later rectified and this mistake bonafide and the ld. AO has not disputed the fact that the as on that date of registry the assessee is not having the sufficient cash on hand. In the revised balance sheet, the assessee has rectified the genuine mistake which has not been disputed. Even the copy of the cash book was also submitted to prove the availability of cash.To substantiate this point the ld. AR of the assessee drawn our attention to the following finding of the ld. AO:- "Comparison of this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee is on account of the genuine error on the part of his accountant and same was disclosed before the assessing officer but the view of the ld. AO is against the fact that the assessee is having sufficient cash balance and therefore, the addition made is not survived and we vacate the addition therefore the ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 26. As regards ground No. 4, the assessee has challenged the confirmation of addition of Rs. 30,87,700/- made under section 68 of the Act. The ld. AO noted that the case credits of Rs. 29,50,000/-, credited during the year under consider in the books of the assessee are held non genuine and added to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the IT Act. For the same reason, the interest of Rs. 1,37,700/- credited to the creditors have also been added u/s 68 of the Act, meaning thereby total addition of Rs. 30,87,700/- was made by the ld. AO. For this relevant observation of the ld. AO is reproduced here in below ; " During the year under consideration, the assessee has taken unsecured loan from following cash creditors as under- S. No. Name of the creditors Date on which loan taken Amount In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....87,700/- under section 68 of the Act being the amount of Loan and Interest thereon for want of Bank A/c of the and entity and credit worthiness of creditors. It is seen that the appellant had taken unsecured loan of Rs.29,50,000/-and claim interest of Rs.1,37,700/- on that amount. But the appellant failed to submit the details to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the people. Details of this have been discussed by the assessing officer in his order. Further, no such document was produced before the undersigned to reverse the order of the AO. Therefore, the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer is upheld and the ground of the appeal is hereby, dismissed." 28. Against this addition made under section 68 of the Act the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed the detailed confirmation of the loan creditor where in the transaction were duly confirmed by the parties. The payment has been received by an account payee cheque and the same is not disputed. The ld. AR further submitted that assessee has proved their onus cast upon them u/s. 68 by filling the confirmation and the related fact the money has been received by an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quantum of amount of Rs.24,86,866/- found to have been borrowed from eight different creditors by way of 'unsecured loan' to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/- each from two creditors, Rs.3,00,000/- from one creditor, Rs.1,00,000/- each from four creditors and Rs.11,36,866/- from one creditor. Maximum amount that has been borrowed by assessee, was Rs.11,36,866/- from Shri K.K. Sharma, Director of the company. ITAT in paras 7 and 8 of its judgment, which is running into four pages, has in detailed discussion dealt with the confirmations given by those creditors and observed that there was no reason to doubt correctness of the claimed cash credit amounting to Rs.24,86,866/- taken from the above named creditors. In our view, the matter therefore touches upon appreciation and evaluation of evidence and does not raise any question of law, muchless any substantial of law, so as to justify interference by this Court in the matter. Appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed in limine." Respectfully following the ratio of the decision where in the assessee has filed the confirmation and thereafter he has not controverted these confirmation the addition cannot ....