TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....61, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case is the assessee is Kartha of HUF has not filed the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee was found to have made unexplained credit of Rs. 1,20,38,849/- in its bank account. Hence, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed a return of income declaring Nil income. Since, there was unsecured loan of Rs. 1,12,13,500/- in the bank account maintaining with Bank of Baroda, the assessee was requested to show the genuineness of the transaction, identity and creditworthiness of the lenders. The assessee could file the details of 3 creditors only and coul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is reproduced vide para no 5.3 of this order. On perusal of remand report and the rejoinder of appellant dated 23.07.2024 it is noted that all the 11 parties have duly submitted their replies and confirmed the loan transactions. Identity is proved in the case of all parties because the notices issued u/s 133(6) were duly served and the parties responded to the notices by submitting necessary documentary evidences. On perusal of assessment order and remand report the A.O. has clearly established the identity and genuineness of transactions. As far as credit worthiness of lending parties is concerned it is noted that all the loans were given by account payee cheques and 9 of the parties are assessed to tax. The two remaining parties have su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting the facts that the lender M/s. Shreenathji Textile advanced a loan of Rs. 12,00,000/- to the assessee. However, no ITR was submitted to prove the creditworthiness of lender. (f) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts that the lender M/s. HD organization which is Prop. Concern of Kamlesh Mehta HUF has income of Rs. 3,76,970/- only while giving sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as loan to assessee. Source of funds were also not properly explained as only partial bank statement was provided & no books of a/c was provided. (g) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts that the lender Dishan Agro has given loan of Rs. 7,50,000/-, while reporting meager income of mere Rs. 1,55,7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n can De drawn in this case: a) This is a fact that none of the unsecured loan parties has denied having the impugned loan transaction with the assessee. All the parties have confirmed the loan transactions vide their Confirmation of Ledger Account and there is no factual discrepancy in the claim of the assessee vis-à-vis confirmation filed by the lenders. So, it can be said that genuineness of the loan transaction stand proved. (b) Identity is proved in all the unsecured loan parties because not only notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act has been duly served but they have duly responded to the notice by submitting the necessary documentary evidences. These parties have also filed copies of PAN/Affidavit to prove their existence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hers and Shreenathji Textile. As far as loan from Prakash Brothers and Shreenathji Textile is concerned, to proved the Identity of the creditors and genuiness of the loan, they have stated that the loan was given by the account payee cheque. However, the final decision in this matter may be taken by your goodself. (g) As pointed out by the assessee, it is a fact that the then AO, while making addition in the concluding para of the assessment order had invoked section 69A of the Income Tax Act but while computing the assessed income, he has mentioned the section for addition as Addition u/s 68'. This seems to be an inadvertent, typographical and bonafide mistake without having any serious ramification. The Impugned addition may be con....