TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) NFAC was justified in deleting the addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 84,285/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) NFAC was justified in deleting the addition of unsecured loan of Rs. 2,31,88,312/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961." 3. Apropos solitary ground of appeal of the Revenue as to deletion of addition by the ld. CIT (A) who observed as under :- "4. FINDINGS & DECISION I have gone through the submission of the appellant and assessment order. The ground wise adjudication of the appeal is as under. 1.) Ground 1: ADDITION OF RS. 53,37,390/- U/S 68 TREATING AGRICULTURE INCOME AS INCOME GENERATED THROUGH UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 1.1). The learned AO had carried addition of Rs. 53,37,390/- on account of agriculture in come shown by the appellant out of its two agriculture facilities i.e. (Rs.35,83,000+ Rs. 17,54,390). Each of such addition is dealt with as under 1.2). In case of addition of Rs. 35,83,000/- the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is change in trading account submitted by the appellant. 1.8). The appellant explained the modus operandi of maintaining books of accounts by submitting bills raised by him for sale of his goods for sum of Rs. 11.92 lakhs. The learned AO did not accept the same and also did not provide cogent reason for not accepting the cash vouchers raised by the appellant while selling goods in the open market. 1.9). I have gone through the submission of the appellant. The appellant has also demonstrated that his agriculture income during AY 2018-19 to AY 2022- 23 was in the range of Rs. 13.86 lakhs to Rs. 45 lakhs. Having regards to cash vouchers submitted by the appellant, the correctness of Income source is stablished and in absence on any specific finding of learned AO on the same, It shall not be rejected. Therefore, I am of the considerate view that stand taken by learned AO is not correct and addition made by learned AO for sum of Rs. 17,54,390/- is deleted. TAX DEPARTMENT 1.10). Accordingly, the ground 1 of the appeal of the appellant is allowed. 2.) Ground 2: ADDITION OF RS. 84,312/-U/S 69C 2.1). The learned AO contested t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....worthiness and genuineness of the transaction were placed before the Ld. AO and the onus shifted to the Ld. AO to disprove the materials placed before him. Without doing so, the addition made by the Ld. AO is based on conjectures and surmises cannot be justified. In the case of Shankar Industries v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 (Cal.), the Calcutta High Court held that it is necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the transaction which results in a cash credit in his books of account. Such proof Includes proof of the identity of his creditor, the capacity of such creditor to advance the money and lastly the genuineness of the transaction. Only after the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department. On the other hand, it was held in the case of CIT v. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP) that where the assessee-firm had satisfactorily explained the credits standing in the name of its partners, the responsibility of the assessee stands discharged. Once it is established that the amount has been invested by a particular person, be he a partner or an individual, then the responsibility of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... DR and admit such ground being legal in nature. First, we take up the additional ground for adjudication. It is noted that assessee during the course of hearing before NFAC had filed an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Following additional evidences were submitted before NFAC: 1. Prayer under Rule 46A 2. Supplementary Deed evidencing the revised details of payment for purchasing agricultural land 3. Order of Board of Revenue, Ajmer in the favour of the assessee evidencing the titular ownership of the agriculture land by the assessee 4. Confirmations, proof of land holding and Naksha of Land from Khastkar of Neighboring Lands evidencing that the agriculture land was owned by the assessee and the same was leased to Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine and was used for growing fodder Ld. DR in respect of additional evidences admitted by NFAC submitted that these additional evidences have been admitted by NFAC without affording any opportunity to AO to examine these evidences and submit his report on the same. Ld. DR submitted that it is statutory obligation to confront the ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Revenue of Rajasthan, Ajmer 8. Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that additional evidence can be accepted by ld. CIT-(A)/NFAC even without remand report from Assessing Officer. In view of provisions of section 250(4) and Rule 46A(4) and the fact of CIT-(A) powers being co-terminus with that of assessing officer. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements: * CIT vs Poddar Swadesh Udyog (P.) Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 252 (Gauhati) [Para7] It would appear from above that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has the powers to make such further enquiry as he thinks fit or, alternately, he may require the Assessing Officer to make such further enquiry and to report the result of the same to him. It is clear from the above provision that in exercise of powers under this section, the Commissioner is also entitled to admit additional evidence which he may think necessary for facilitating further enquiry. The powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) are undoubtedly very wide. Even otherwise, the powers of a statutory appellate authority are co-terminus with the powers of the authorities at the first instance. There cannot be any dispute to this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a report. The AAC made enquiry himself in the sense that he took the evidence. So, the question of remanding the case to the ITO did not really arise because there was a choice of procedure and the two procedures could not be mixed up, i.e., evidence could not be taken by the AAC and then decision recorded by the ITO. Assuming for the argument sake that the AAC came to the view that further opportunity was to be given to the income Tax Officer and he remanded the case, it was still to be shown as to what were the facts that ITO could have brought out having bearing on this case. The Hon'ble High Court, on the facts and circumstances of the case, held that Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the AAC to the extent that it remanded the case back to the ITO. Their Lordships in the decision, observed that in some cases it might be difficult to insist on the AAC deciding the case on new facts himself and sit might be necessary that there should be remand order to the ITO. In complex cases and where new facts arise, it is better that the ITO should deal with the same and, if possible, find some rebutting material. But in case of the type before the High Court, i.e., where qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ote that the additional evidences relate to Ground No. 1 of the departmental appeal and that too with reference to relief amounting to Rs. 35,83,000/-. In the interest of justice we allow this ground of appeal. Its impact on the main ground raised by the Department would be taken care while adjudicating the specific ground. 4. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the order of the AO. The ld. DR also filed the written submission vide his letter dated 10.08.2023 issued from the office of ACIT-II, Jaipur which carry following main contents. "The CIT (A) has passed the Appeal Order dated 16.03.2023 without taking into cognizance the following factual discrepancies: 2. Ground of Appeal: Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC us justified in admitting additional evidence without referring the same to the Assessing Officer under Rule 46-A" a) Please refer to the submission vide office letter no 237 dated 31.07.2023, b) The additional evidences (3) stated therein were not produced before the Assessing officer by the assessee during the course of Assessment proceedings. The assessee has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een filed stands infructuous. i) The Ld. CIT (A) has categorically mentioned Supplementary Deed (AE) in para 4 of the Appeal Order. The facts stated by the assessee in para 4 of his submission dated 01.08.2023 are incorrect. j) The Ld. CIT (A) has produced the entire submission of the assessee in his Order hence, the Order of Ld. CIT (A) has been passed after taking into account all the facts presented by assessee in his paperbook. Hence, para 5 of the assessee's submission dated 01.08.2023 stands incorrect. k) In para 6 of his submission dated 01.08.2023, the assessee has categorized the said evidences as further evidences. There is no such categorization of evidences present in Rule 46A of the IT. Rules, 1962. i) In para 7 of the submission dated 01.08.2023, the assessee has submitted that two (out of three) evidences were part of the government record. The ground has no merit as the Rule 46A is very clear on the admission of additional evidences m) Case law CIT vs Poddar Sudesh Udyog (P) Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 252 (Gauhati) cited by the assessee is distinguishable on facts. In the referred case, the assessee was prevented by a suffici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings. The alleged supplementary deed has never been produced before the Assessing Officer to test its genuineness. c) The income of Rs. 35,83,000/- is supposed to have arisen out of lease rent from M/s Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust and the Trust has allegedly used the said land for the purpose of animal fodder production. * In this regard, the Girdavari report of the said land for the referred period (as submitted by the Verification Unit during the course of assessment proceedings) mention cultivation of crops namely bajra, gwaar, groundnut. wheat, matar and rajmaa. These crops are not animal fodder crops as "claimed in the lease deed. * The Trust could not produce any evidence whatsoever which could prove that the said land was used by the trust for animal fodder production. * Further, the said trust has not claimed any expenditure and has not accounted for such cultivation in its books of account for animal fodder production during the said period. * Farther, the confirmations submitted as additional evidences were never produced before the Assessing Officer. d) In view of above, the assessee could not explai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s confirmations undated. * Further, Mandi Samiti Bill dated 12.11.2019 Rs. 1,08,464/- though mentions the name of BhonriLalMool Chand Jain (as is the case in rest of the Bills), but does not find mention in the confirmation of the said person. * The referred Mandi Samiti Bills appear to have been written by the same person on the same day (same handwriting). The Hon'ble Bench can order the forensic analysis of the said documents. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Nipun Builders & Developers (P) Ltd (2013) taxmann.com 292 (Delhi) (para 12... No attempt was made by the Tribunal to scratch the surface and probe the documentary evidence in some depth....) * The assessee submitted the cash book twice viz. original and revised one (copy enclosed) and both are different from each other. The agricultural income in the cash book (vide assessee reply dated 08.08.2022) has been shown as Rs. 4,50,000/- on 08.04.2022 whereas, in revised cash book (vide assessee reply dated 19.09.2022), the agricultural income has been disclosed at Rs. 6,70,078/- * Further the agriculture ledger account has also been submitted twice (copy encl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances, the same was deposited on 04.08.2020 (after 10 months of the receipt of the amount). * The assessee failed to provide proof of such payment on 04.08.2020, when inquired by the AO. * The assessee also did not provide any evidence as to when the payment of alleged "affiliation fee" became due, and why the payment was allegedly paid on 04.08.2022 * Further, the Trust has not shown the assessee in the schedule "Loans and advances" of the consolidated Balance Sheet filed in reply to the show cause notice. The total amount of the schedule as on 31.03.2020 is Rs. 4,35,717/ * On perusal of Union Bank of India statement for F.Y. 2019-20 provided by the assessee in its submission on 07.09.2022 (and paperbook submission dated 01.08.2023 page number 60), it is found that the assessee has received Rs 1 crore from Apollo Medical Trust on 04.10.2019 with the narration entry (Amount received back from Apollo College against advances given earlier in which I am a managing trustee). Further the same amount ie. 1 Crore is reflected to be paid to Rajni Sharma (Suryakantļi) on 04.10.2019 with the narration (Amount repaid to Rajni Sharma against amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The same is evident from the assessee'spaperbook submission dated 01.08.2023 page number 60. * The assessee has failed to provide any explanation regarding the credit of Rs. 50 lakhs in its books of account on 09.10.2019 as per the requirements of section 68 of the Act. * The deletion of this addition by the CIT (A) without any discussion of the issue in his Appeal Order is perverse and bad in law. * The nature of the transaction could not be proved by the assessee. * Rupal Jain vs Commissioner of Income tax (2023) 152 taxmann.com 346 (SC) * MrsRupal Jain vs Commissioner of Income tax (2023) 152 taxmann.com 345 (Allahabad) B. The Assessing Officer has made the remaining additions u/s 68 of the Act citing reasons for each addition, which are different from each other. The Order of Assessing Officer is heavily relied upon for the remaining issues. Some glaring mistakes in the Order of CIT (A) are being highlighted, as under: * The CIT (A) has summarily deleted the additions by stating that the assessee has submitted six documents in each case, which is factually incorrect. For instance: The assessee co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Assessee's submission dated 04.03.2022 during the course of assessment proceeding 1-51 2. Assessee's submission dated 08.08.2022 during the course of assessment proceeding 52-67 3. Assessee's submission dated 07.09.2022 during the course of assessment proceeding 68-96 4. Assessee's submission dated 19.09.2022 during the course of assessment proceeding 97-142 5. Assessee's submission dated 27.09.2022 during the course of assessment proceeding 143-247 Case laws relied upon 6. High Court of Delhi (Commissioner of Income tax v. Manish Build Well (P.) Ltd. [2011] 204 Taxman 106 (Delhi) 248-261 7. High Court of Kerala {Commissioner of Income tax, Trichur v. E.D.Benny [2015] 62 taxmann.com 302 (Kerala)}. 262-271 8. High Court of Delhi (Commissioner of Income tax v. United Tower (I) (P.) Ltd. [2007] 296 ITR 106 (Delhi)). 272-273 9. High Court of Bombay {Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. Commissioner of Income tax [1998] 100 Taxman 404 (Bombay)}. 274-278 10. ITAT Chandigarh Bench "A" {Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C has given his decision on the basis of evidences before the Id. AO during assessment proceedings. 6. The additional evidences were in the nature of further evidences. Further evidences are those evidences which are given in furtherance of the evidences already on record. 7. It is submitted that out of the three additional evidences, following additional evidences were part of government/public record. i) Supplementary deed ii) Copy of decision of Board of Revenue of Rajasthan, Ajmer 8. Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that additional evidence can be accepted by Id. CIT-(A)/NFAC even without remand report from Assessing Officer. In view of provisions of section 250(4) and Rule 46A(4) and the fact of CIT-(A) powers being co-terminus with that of assessing officer. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements: * CIT vs Poddar Swadesh Udyog (P.) Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 252 (Gauhati) [Para7] It would appear from above that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has the powers to make such further enquiry as he thinks fit or, alternately, he may require the Assessing Officer to make such further enquiry and to rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but this evidence. The Hon'ble High Court further observed that notice of hearing from the Appellate Tribunal must have gone to the ITO and he was represented before the Appellate Tribunal it was, therefore, open to the ITO to bring the necessary facts before the Appellate Tribunal at the time of hearing of second appeal. The court then referred to provision of sub-section (4) of section 250 empowering the AAC to make further enquiry himself or direct the ITO to make further enquiry and make a report. The AAC made enquiry himself in the sense that he took the evidence. So the question of remanding the case to the ITO did not really arise because there was a choice of procedure and the two procedures could not be mixed up, re evidence could not be taken by the AAC and then decision recorded by the ITO Assuming for the argument sake that the AAC came to the view that further opportunity was to be given to the income Tax Officer and he remanded the case, it was still to be shown as to what were the facts that ITO could have brought out having bearing on this case. The Hon'ble High Court, on the facts and circumstances of the case, held that Tribunal was right in setting aside ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee evidencing the titular ownership of the agriculture land by the assessee 12-23 1.4. Confirmations, proof of land holding and Naksha of Land from Khastkar of Neighboring Lands evidencing that the agriculture land was owned by the assessee and the same was leased to Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine and was used for growing fodder 24-30 2. Paper Book before ld. CIT (A) 2.1 Index 31,32 2.2 Purchase Dee 33-34 2.3 Copy of order of Board of Revenue Rajasthan dated 2411-2020 45-49 2.4 ledger confirmation of Apollo college of Veterinary Medicine 50 2.5 Inspect Report 51 2.6 Sale Bills of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti 52-55 2.7 Bank Statement of assessee showing Rs. 10,00,000/- receipt of agriculture sale 56-61 2.8 Revised cash book 62-64 2.9. Confirmation from Bhonri Lal Moolchand about agriculture income 65 2.10. Girdavari Report of lands on which agricultural activities were carried out by the assessee 66-68 2.11. Account Statements of Bajaj Finserv 2.12 Documents of Sanjay Traders 69-76 i. IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssions for addition of Rs. 35,83,000/- 2.1. The assessee through conveyance deed dated 21-05-2018 purchased an agricultural land for Rs. 70,00,000/- in village Ratanpura from MrRajkumar and Mrs. Kavita [PB -Conveyance Deed: Pages 1-12]. 2.2. The assessee, prior to the date of registry, paid Rs. 2,00,000/- through banking channel and Rs. 800,000/- in cash. The assessee then issued 6 post-dated cheques of Rs. 10,00,000/- each for making the balance payment (Rs. 70,00,000 - 2,00,000 - 8,00,000). Accordingly, the conveyance deed was registered [PB Pages 1-12]. 2.3. However, because of non-availability of funds in the bank account two cheques, being cheque no. 026291 dated 29-07-2018 amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- drawn in favour of Rajkumar and cheque no. 026293 dated 31-07-2018 amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- drawn in favour of Kavita, were taken back. Rs. 20,00,000 were paid in cash to Rajkumar (Rs. 10,00,000/-) and Kavita (10,00,000/-). Supplementary Deed evidencing the change in modes of payment was executed. The said Supplementary Deed is placed as an additional evidence[AE - Supplementary Deed: Pages 1-9]. Prayer for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.8. During the year under consideration the assessee had given on lease the said land to Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust for Rs. 35,83,000. Accordingly, the lease rentals earned were treated as an agriculture income and was claimed to be exempt. Complete transaction took place through banking channel. 2.9. The assessee during the assessment proceedings placed on record ledger confirmation of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust. [PB Page 19 ] 2.10. It is submitted that notice u/s 133(6) was issued to Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust. In response to the said notice Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust duly confirmed the fact of taking land on lease and the payment of lease rentals. Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust further submitted that it used the land for growing fodder so as to feed the animals of its hospital. [PB - 133(6) and response by Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust] 2.11. Hence, because of this reason also ownership of the land cannot be doubted. Further, the transaction of lease as well as receipt of Rs. 35,83,000/- cannot be doubted as both receiver as well as the payer have confirmed the said fact. 2.12. Ld. AO without disp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in dispute the change of ownership could not be made. Now as per the decision of Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 24-11-2020 the land revenue records are to be modified and name of the assessee is to be mentioned [AE Pages 10-21]. The ownership of the land is also evident from the response of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn. 2.17. Ld. AO after perusing the contents of Girdavari Report observed that the crops grown by Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust were Bajra, Gwaar, Groundnut, Wheat, Matar, etc. and not fodder. Accordingly, ld. AO doubted the agriculture income of the assessee and held that the assessee could not prove that he earned agriculture. 2.18 Further, animal fodder is not a designated crop but is a byproduct of main crop. A person is required to grow crop in order to get animal income by leasing out agriculture land for agriculture purposes. In this regard it is submitted that the finding is solely based on Girdavari Report. No spot visit was carried out by the Verification Unit. He can, although compromise on the quality of seeds used to grow the said crop as he requires fodder. Hence, in revenu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion made u/s 68. 3. Submissions for addition of Rs. 17,54,390/- 3.1. The assessee carried out agricultural activity on another land situated in Karauli District admeasuring 30.10 Acres. During the year under consideration the assessee had declared agriculture income of Rs. 17,14,830 on account of sale of agricultural produce. 3.2. Agricultural produce of Rs. 11,92,776/- being crops was sold in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gangapur City, Rajasthan. Further, agriculture produce of Rs. 5,61,614/- being vegetables were sold in rural open market. 3.3. The assessee before ld. AO submitted bills issued by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gangapur evidencing 4 sale transactions aggregating to Rs. 11,92,776 [PB - Sale Bills: Pages 21-24 ].Details of which are as under: S. No. Date Bill Amount Sold to PB 1 14-06-2019 3,92,858/- Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain 21 2 15-06-2019 2,58,771/- 22 3 17-06-2019 4,32,683/- 23 4 12-11-2019 1,08,464/- Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti 24 Total 11,92,776/- The proceeds of Rs. 10,00,000 were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here were a few human errors made by the accountant while writing the books of the assessee. Such errors when identified, were rectified and a revised cashbook was furnished [PB Pages 31-33]. Itis submitted that ld. AO erred in adversely viewing the revision of cash book without bringing on record that the entries passed in the books of the assessee were false entries. 3.9. It is established principle that entries in the books of accounts are not decisive of the nature and character of expenses. This issue was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC) [PB Pages 108 112]. In this case the tax authorities and the Hon'ble ITAT, denied the deduction of the sales tax liability to the taxpayer contending that the taxpayer denied its liability to pay the sales tax and also, had not made a provision in its books of account for the said liability. Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the claim of the assessee and held that "....We are wholly unable to appreciate the suggestion that if an assessee under some misapprehension or mistake fails to make an entry in the books of account and although, under the law, a deduction must be allowed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce can be drawn. 3.13. It is pertinent to note that the assessee sold agriculture produce amounting to Rs. 10,84,312/- to Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain. Because of the error of accountant, the sum received from Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain was recorded as Loan. However, on identification of error, the entry was revised and brought on record. In the assessment proceedings, the entire agriculture income, was added to the total income treating the same to be unexplained. Such agriculture income included Rs. 10,84,312/- received from Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain (Ground no. 2). Further, the exact amount received from Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain was considered as unexplained cash credit and was again added to the total income of the assessee (Ground no. 6). Meaning thereby, receipt of Rs. 10,84,312/- was added twice, which is illegal. If at all addition is confirmed the assessee deserves relief atleast in one of the grounds. In view of above it is submitted that agriculture income of Rs. 17,54,390/- is fully explained and substantiated. Therefore, relief may please be granted by deleting the addition made u/s 68. In view of above the total addition of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp;35,83,000/-. The assessee is also hereby directed to fully cooperate with the AO in such set aside proceedings. Thus, this relief of Rs. 35,83,000/- granted by NFAC is set aside to the file of AO. for deciding the issue after taking into consideration the additional evidences furnished and/or any other explanation or evidences furnished before him. In respect of agriculture income of Rs. 17,14,830/- we note that agriculture income from the said land has been offered for tax in earlier assessment years and have been accepted by the Department. The bills have been produced for sale of agriculture produce. Major portion is received through banking channel. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of NFAC granting relief to the assessee in respect of the said income of Rs. 17,14,830/-. Thus, addition of Rs. 35,83,000/- deleted by NFAC is restored back to the file of AO and order of NFAC is upheld regarding deletion of addition of Rs. 17,14,830/- GROUND NO. 2: Addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 84,285/- under section 69C of the IT Act, 1961 AO, during the course of assessment proceedings, observed that certain payments ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that no payments were made out of books which has been so appreciated by NFAC while allowing the relief. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We note that, ld. DR has not been able to place before us anything to controvert the finding of NFAC. We agree that no payments have been made out of books. There have been reversal entries for certain cheques which were dishonored and cleared subsequently. Accordingly, we agree with the findings of the NFAC and we do not find any reason to deviate from such findings. Thus, the above Ground No. 2 of the Department is dismissed and order of NFAC in this regard is upheld. GROUND NO. 3: Addition under section 68 of Rs. 2,31,88,312/- This ground of the Department is consisted of additions deleted by NFAC in respect of following loans/advances taken by the assessee: Name of Party Amount (Rs.) Sanjay Traders 40,00,000/- JSB Evergreen Sweets & Snacks 23,50,000/- Prabhu Dayal 4,00,000/- Bhonri Lal Mool Chand Jain 10,84,312/- Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust 1,53,54,000/- Total 2,31,88,312/- Ld. DR submitted that in respect of each of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the availability of funds with Sanjay Traders cannot be doubted. 1.1.5 It is further submitted that the amount was given on 13-05-2019 out of the cash credit limit available with Sanjay Traders. Hence, the source of amount in the hands of Sanjay Traders is fully explained and justified. [PB Bank Statement: Pages 57-83] 1.1.6 It is also pertinent to note that the ld. AO failed to appreciate that the loan was taken just for 6 months. Any businessman having more than 30 times turnover can grant a short term loan irrespective of the amount of his capital. 1.1.7 It is worth mentioning that the department was having all the details with them with regards to Sanjay Traders. Ld. AO, not being convinced, could have enquired independently about the loan. However, ld. AO, for the reason best known to him, sat with folded hands, did not make any enquiry. It is submitted that verification can be made now during these proceedings if deemed appropriate. Without finding defects in the documents furnished, ld. AO just considered the loan to be unexplained which is illegal. 1.2 Submissions for loan received from JSB Evergreen Sweets and Snacks amounting to Rs.&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on record establishing that the money shown to have received as share application money, was as a matter of fact, unaccounted money belonging to the assessee company, the finding arrived at by the AO, which is based on suspicion, has rightly been held not sustainable in the eyes of law. Suffice it to say that the finding arrived at by the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, which remains a finding of fact, cannot be said to be capriccio. Without prejudice to above it is submitted no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee as the alleged bogus loan was repaid in the subsequent year. In the case of ST and JSB the loan was repaid in the same year. Reliance is placed on the decision of Gujarat High Court in case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, 2022 [PB Pages 116-117].- payment to the assessee as well as repayment of the loan by the assessee to the depositors is made by account payee cheques and the interest is also paid by the assessee to the creditors by account payee cheques. 1.5 The above judgement has been followed in a recent judgement of RAS Concepts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 95 ITR 46, 2022 [PB Pages].- 9.4 In view of the above, we are of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1.4 None of the evidences were found false, further, no evidence against the assessee was brought on record. Hence, the onus of the assessee stands discharged and no addition without any contrary evidence on record can be made. 1.5 If ld. AO was not satisfied/convinced with the explanation offered by the assessee then he should have examined Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain for verification of facts. However, ld. AO, for the reasons best known to him, sat with folded hands and made the addition. It is submitted that verification can be made now during these proceedings if deemed appropriate. 1.6 It is pertinent to note that the entire agricultural income has been added in to the total income of the assessee. Such income includes the sale proceeds of Rs. 10,84,312/- from Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain (Ground No. 1). Thereafter, further addition of receipts from Bhonri Lal Moolchand Jain being Rs. 10,84,312/- has been made u/s 68 (Ground No. 4). This has resulted into double taxation of the same amount which is illegal. If at all addition is confirmed, then the assessee deserves relief in atleast one of the grounds. In view of above additions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yed the said sum for 10 months. Further, ld. AO also observed that the amount of advance given was not appearing in Schedule 4 of Loans and Advances of the Balance Sheet of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust. Accordingly, such receipt of Rs. 1,50,00,000 was treated to be unexplained. 1.8 In this regard it is submitted that provisions of Section 68 have been wrongly invoked in the present case. The assessee has clearly explained the advance and the reason of receiving such advance. The advance was duly substantiated by placing on record Name, Address, PAN, Financial Statements, Bank Statements. The advance was further confirmed by the lender and the lender also furnished ITR, ledger account and confirmation. Hence, the credit in the Books of Accounts stands fully explained. Ld. AO has also not doubted the ultimate payment of affiliation fees. 1.9 In the above factual background it is submitted that ld. AO has erred in considering external factors like the time for which the funds have stayed with the assessee and the presentation of financial statements of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust. It is submitted that the payment of affiliation fees is not disputed. F....