TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 920
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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'ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore 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 be made w/s 69 as it is not the finding of the AO that the assessee has made unex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etails 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) (iii) Confirmation of account from M/s Govindam Casting Private Limited. (iv) IT copy of M/s Govindam Casting Private Limited in which the assessee and his husband are the directors. IT is signed by her husband ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 showing income from Business of Rs. 31.89 lacs (for creditworthiness) in AY 2015-16 (iv) How the amount received by the assessee from her brother who was earning handsome income can be treated as non-genuine. 5. The Ld. AO after the submission of the document alongwith the letter dated 06.11.2017 did not ask for any detail or the information in respect of these parties. He did not enquire from the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the AO should specifically ask the AR to submit required documents to his satisfaction without any specific query the AO cannot allege that the assessee failed to submit required documentary evidence. 8. Regarding first creditor M/s. Ganesh Rolling Mills the assessee submitted bank statement of lender for FY 2013-14 and 2014-15 showing transaction of amount given by the assessee in the preceding year which was received back from the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bit 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 given to the assessee. The ld. counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aravali Trading Company vs. ITO 187 taxman 338 (Raj.) to submit that when the assessee has placed confirmation of transaction and the Assessing Officer has confirmed and accepted creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction then the source of the same being cash deposit cannot be questioned from the assessee but m....