TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....009-10 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,78,00,000/-as cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming the addition in spite of the fact that the creditor, Ms Meghna Bhardwaj, had confirmed the credit. 3. The CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming the addition even though Ms Meghna Bhardwaj is an Income Tax assessee and the sum of Rs. 3,88,00,000/- was paid to the company from her NRO Account where the money had been transferred from her foreign account. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in ignoring the evidence placed before him to establish that Ms M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred in law by failing to consider that the loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- of Ms Kantarani Gulati has been repaid along with interest. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in passing the order in violation of principles of natural justice, without granting any hearing to the appellant. 4. The learned CIT (a) erred in passing the order without following the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the appellant was not informed of any deficiency in the evidence already produced and did not ask for any further clarification or evidence or documents. 5. The learned CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact and law on the point at issue, inasmuch as the identity, capacity and genuineness of the transactions is fully established. 6. Appellant crave....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."8. Decision 8.1 From the facts of the case in the assessment order. I find that Appellant has accepted unsecured loans of Rs. 2,25.04.930 from Mrs. Meghna Bhardwaj and Rs. 62,00,000 from Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj. The Appellant has also accepted share application money of Rs. 1.15,00,000/- from the above Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj. The Appellant has also taken loan of Rs. 1 crore from Kanta Rani Gulati. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer required that Appellant to file the necessary details to discharge initial onus u/s 68 with regard to the above two cash creditors. No details/material were filed before the Assessing Officer till 12.03.2013. The Appeal No. 160/13-14/193/15-16 Assessing Officer on 12.03.2013 issued a summons to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of any documentary evidences to establish identity of the cash creditor her creditworthiness and proof of genuineness of the transaction. The Assessing Officer made the addition of the aggregate amount of Rs. 1.77,00,000/- u/s 68 of 1.T. Act, 1961. With regard to loan amounting to Rs. 1 crore from Kanta Rani Gulati, no details were furnished to explain the nature and source of the credit. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated Rs. 1 crore as unexplained cash credit. 8.2 During appeal proceedings, no new evidences have been furnished except for submission that the creditors are having PAN and are filing income tax returns. No proof in support of submission is filed in the absence of any further evidence filed me. I have no option but t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue held as under:- "In the above grounds, the common issue involved is addition of Rs. 4,78,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer w/s 68 of the Act. Going through the facts of the case, I find that the Appellant has accepted unsecured loan of Rs. 4,78,00,000/- from one Mrs. Meghna Bhardwaj. During assessment proceedings, the copy of bank statements of Mrs. Meghna Bhardwaj was submitted. From that statement of Axis Bank, it was noticed that amount of Rs. 3,88,00,000/- has been transferred from her bank account to the Appellant company account. Besides above, the amounts aggregating Rs. 90,00,000/- were also received from the third parties on behalf of above Mrs. Meghna Bhardwaj and thus the ....