SMT JAYA SARDA,INDORE vs. DY,CIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-I, Indore, dated 18.5.2018. The assessee has raised nine grounds. However, the sum & substance of the grounds of appeals is that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous on the facts and law in confirming the additions at Rs.10 lacs on account of unsecured loans added as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 & Rs.72,660/- on account of disallowance of the genuine interest paid, respectively, without considering the written submission filed, explanation offered and documents submitted to prove the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transactions in spite of the fact that the assessee was not provided opportunity of cross-examination at any level

2 Smt. Jaya Sharda -SMC ITA 699 of 2018 during the course of assessment proceeding as well as appellate proceedings especially when all the statements and proceedings were recorded/held behind the back of the assessee in absence of any confrontation.

3. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee, however, written synopsis has been filed wherein it is contended that the assessee is an individual lady engaged in the business of trading in futures & commodities. The return of income was filed by the assessee declaring income at Rs.3,70,000/-. The assessee is the regular assessee of income tax since long and regular books of accounts are being maintained as well as duly audited u/s 44AB of the I.T.

Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer made additions at Rs.10 lacs on account of unsecured loans added as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 & at Rs.72,660/- on account of disallowance of the genuine interest paid, respectively, on the ground that the assessee failed to prove credit

3 Smt. Jaya Sharda -SMC ITA 699 of 2018 worthiness & genuineness of unsecured loan obtained from M/s. Jay Jyoti India P. Ltd. However, the Revenue Authorities were not justified as the assessee filed relevant documentary evidences like, copies of ITR, PAN, confirmations of accounts from the loan creditor co., bank statements showing that payment was made to the assessee through RTGS/Account payee cheque, therefore, the assessee had discharged her primary onus of proving identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of transaction and the Revenue had not at all discharged its onus to prove otherwise and acted only upon surmises, conjectures and guess work to make additions. Further, it is submitted that the only basis of addition is some sort of inquiry, that too, conducted by another Assessing Officer in respect of another assessee and for some other assessment year and the Assessing Officer did not take any pain to issue summons to the co. in question or to carry out any sort of enquiry otherwise rather to rely on the enquiry made in some other case. Even no opportunity to cross-examine the person, upon whose statement, reliance was placed under assessment proceedings especially when such statement had been taken behind the back of the assessee and there was no confrontation at all. Therefore, it is submitted that the Revenue Authorities were not justified in making/sustaining the additions. In support of the plea, reliance is also placed on the following case-laws:

4 Smt. Jaya Sharda -SMC ITA 699 of 2018

On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR relied on the order of the ld. Revenue Authorities but could not controvert the submission of the assessee that aforesaid cross-examination was not allowed.

Order was pronounced in the open court on 29.10.2019.