JULI SAXENA,NEEMUCH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

Facts as well as issue in both the captioned appeals are common and hence, the appeals are being disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience & brevity. For adjudication purpose, the facts of ITA No.114/Jodh/2019 are discussed.

This appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-2, Udaipur, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No.10841/2017-18 dated 11/01/2019 on following effective grounds:-

The impugned addition stem from an assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 26/12/2018. Pursuant to receipt of certain Assessment Year: 2010-11 information in the course of search action In the case of Chetak Group, Nimbahera (Rajasthan), it transpired that one Shri Vikram Anjana was channelizing groups’ unaccounted money through his proprietorship concern namely M/s U. B. investment. The said entity received bogus loans from various persons. Since the assessee had also advanced an amount of Rs.4 Lacs to M/s U.B.Investment, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee was directed to explain the source of Rs.4 Lacs. However, in the absence of any satisfactory reply forthcoming from the assessee, the said amount was added to the income of the assessee. The assessee had advanced Rs. 4 Lacs though Cheque No.283369 but the same amount was transferred back to the bank account of the assessee on the same date.

Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee sought to impress upon the fact that the amount so advanced was sourced from an earlier loan repaid by one Shri Jagdish Diama. However, the said plea was rejected since the purported bank certificate stated to be filed by the assessee was found missing. Accordingly, the additions were confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

It is quite evident that the assessee has miserably failed to prove the source of advances. No supporting documents could be submitted by assessee during assessment proceedings as well as during appellate proceedings. However, keeping in view the fact that the assessee is an individual having meager income, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re- adjudication after providing another opportunity of hearing to the Assessment Year: 2010-11 assessee. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate the source of advances failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with adjudication on the basis of material on record.

Facts are similar in ITA No.115/Jodh/2019. Therefore, this matter would also stand restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with similar directions.

Both the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. S (Sandeep Gosain) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) "ाियक सद" / Judicial Member लेखा सद" / Accountant Member