TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 920
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction of learned assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 14850000/- by rejecting the additional evidence filed before her without providing proper opportunity and ignoring all canons of justice. 3. The ld. counsel of assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of learned assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 14850000/- as unexplained investment/unexplained cash credit under section 68 & 69 of the Income tax Act 1961 under the head "Income from other sources". He further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of learned assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 14850000/- by rejecting the additional evidence filed before her without providing proper opportunity and ignoring all canons of justice. The ld. counsel precisely reiterating written arguments/synopsis of assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer after taking written submission dated 06.11.2017 on record did not ask any further detail or information in respect of all four parties/lenders and even he did not make any enquiry from the Assessing Officer of said lenders about the said transactions with the assessee. Therefore in view of judgment of Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the property purchased during the relevant financial period therefore appeal may kindly be dismissed. 6. On careful consideration of above submissions and on perusal of paper book filed by the assessee spread over 116 pages we find that to sole controversy revolves around the fact that the Assessing Officer question the assessee about source of investment in the purchase of property and the assessee submitted that it was out of credits and repayment of loan given by the assessee to the respective parties during previous financial period. At this juncture we also find it appropriate to reproduced relevant part of written submissions of the assessee as follows:- 1. In the assessment order, the Ld. AO made addition w/s 68 / 69 of the Income tax Act. Both the sections 68 and 69 are different and the Ld. AO was not sure under which section, the addition was required to be made. On the last page of the order, the Ld. AO while making addition stated as addition for "Unexplained cash credits / investment as discussed above". 2. The Assessing Officer did not bother under which provision the addition has to be made. From the facts it is apparent that no addition can ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39; ble Bench to kindly delete the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 69 of the Income tax Act. 4. Before the CIT (A), the assessee furnished the details in respect of each party as under: - (i) M/s Ganesh Rolling Mills:(Refer Pages 17 to 24 of the Paper Book) (a) Bank Statements of lender and borrower for financial year 2013-14 and 2014-15 showing the transactions of amount given by the assessee in the preceding year which is received back from the said proprietorship concern. (b) Copy of account confirmation from M/s Ganesh Rolling Mills (a proprietorship concern of Mr. Deepak Garg who is the husband of the assessee) (c) PAN details (d) Bank statement showing the name of the proprietor Mr. Deepak Garg (e) IT of Mr. Deepak Garg as a proprietor of M/s Ganesh Rolling Mills as no separate return is filed in case of a proprietorship concern. (ii) M/s Govindam Casting Private Limited: (Refer Pages 25 to 39 of the Paper Book) (i) Govindam Casting Private Limited is a company registered with ROC. (ii) Bank statement of both the lender and the borrower. (showing each transaction through banking channel) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....naccounted money of the assessee. Reliance placed on the judgment of CIT Vs. Deen Dayal Choudhary 88 taxmann.com 475 and CIT Vs. RanchhodJivabhaiNakhav 21 taxmann.com 159 (Refer Page 11 and 12 of Paper Book). 4. The balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was from the account of the proprietor of M/s RD Traders for which the documents enclosed are: - (i) Copy of bank statement (ii) Account confirmation (iii) IT copy and computation of income (before CIT (A) vide letter dated 22.01.2019. (iv) Mr. Anand Garg: Rs. 25,00,000/- (Refer Pages 60 to 66 of Paper Book) (i) No question was raised by the AO in the notice issued u/s 142(1) in respect of the said amount received by the assessee. (Refer para 2.3 and 2.4 of the Asst. Order) (ii) Mr. Anand Garg is brother of the assessee. (iii) During the appellate proceedings, assessee furnished details such as: (a) Copy of bank statement of Mr. Anand Garg (b) Confirmation of loan specifically stating that he is brother of the assessee. (c) Copy of PAN card of Mr. Anand Garg (d) Copy of IT Copy of Mr. Anand Garg with the computation of income showi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erving that evidences were available with the assessee during assessment proceedings and AR before the AO stated that he has nothing further to submit. On careful and thoughtful consideration of above observations and findings of the Ld. CIT(A) we are of the view that the assessee in the application under rule 46A of the I.T Rules 1962, stated the reason which prevented her from filing said documents during assessment proceeding but Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the same. Further, also note that copies of ITR and confirmation part of departmental records and supportive to establish identity of lender even if additional evidence noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.1 is ignored then also other documentary evidence cannot be discarded or dismissed at the threshold without evaluation. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing prayer of assessee seeking admission of additional evidence. It is pertinent to mention that although the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.2 denied to admit additional evidence but at the same time he evaluated and examined the same by recording finding there on which are not only self contradictory but also perverse as even if AR said he has nothing further to submit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Deepak Garg who is a director in the said company, confirmations of account and bank statements reveals that as on 31.03.2014 there was a credit balance of Rs. 28,50,000/- in favour of the assessee in the books of said company which was brought forward opening credit balance on 01.04.2014. It is also clearly discernable that the assessee received total amount of Rs. 59,50,000/- from this company leaving debit balance/loan of Rs. 31 lakh debit at the end of financial period on 31.03.2015. The Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A), therefore was not correct and justified in dismissing the documentary evidence of assessee by observing that the amount given by the assessee in earlier year required to be proved without any further verification and examination of related entity to the transaction. Therefore, we hold that the assessee has successfully demonstrated and establish identity and creditworthiness of said lender company and genuineness of transaction routed through bank. 10. Regarding M/s. R.D Traders the assessee received Rs. 25 lakh from its proprietor Mr. Reasyddin Salmani and only on the basis of cash credit entry in the bank account of said party from which the loan was give....