KALPESH C. SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

On the last occasion, this appeal was listed on 30.4.2019. The assessee had filed an application for adjournment of hearing and the hearing was adjourned to 6.6.2019. However, on 6.6.2019 no-one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, and with the assistance of the ld.DR, I have gone through the record.

Solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,46,800/- which was added by the AO with aid of section 68 of the Income Tax act.

It emerges out from the record that the assessee has filed his return of income on 28.9.2012 declaring total income at Rs.3,38,860/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the AO that the assessee has taken unsecured loans from different persons. He has taken a sum of Rs.4,85,000/- through cheque from three parties and Rs.161,800/- in cash from nine parties. According to the finding recorded by both the officers concurrently it revealed that when the AO started inquiry the assessee did not bother to file the details. Thereafter, father of the assessee along with two authorized persons attended before the AO and admitted that these are the bogus unsecured loans. With this finding, addition has been made. On the other hand, the stand of the assessee is that no such admission was made on his behalf either by the authorized representatives or his father. The assessee has filed necessary details. According to him, loans of Rs.4,85,000/- was taken through cheques from Smt.Pistaben C. Shah, Smt.Shital Shah and from Smt.Sunita Paresh Shah. He has submitted their bank statements, confirmation and return of income from all the alleged creditors. In response to the notice under section 133(6) the alleged creditors have submitted necessary details and copies of replies have been placed on page nos.23 to 29 of the paper book. The ld.DR relied upon the orders of the Revenue authorities and contended that addition be confirmed.

I have gone through the record carefully. I find that assessee has specifically pleaded in the statement of facts filed before the CIT(A) disputing the stand of the AO that these loans were admitted as bogus. Once a dispute has been raised by the assessee at first available time,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.