SH. ANIL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The sole issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is relating to the addition of Rs.79.95 lakhs into the income of the assessee made by the Assessing Officer (in short, “the AO”) on account of loan received by the assessee from three parties, which the Assessing Officer (AO) treated as ‘unexplained credit’ into the income of the assessee.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that so far as the loan of Rs.16 lakhs from one Sh. Ravi Shekhar is concerned, the loan was received on 17th June 2016, out of which, Rs.15 lakhs was returned by assessee on 28th June 2016 and the remaining amount of Rs.1 lakh was returned on 12th August 2016. So far as the source of the said loan amount was concerned, the AO noted that the said Sh. Ravi Shekhar had received amount of Rs.16 lakhs through RTGS from some third party and it was immediately remitted to the assessee and that otherwise, there was no sufficient balance in the Bank account of Sh. Ravi Shekhar to lend such hefty amount to the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee in this aspect has submitted that the said Sh. Ravi Shekhar had received the said amount from his mother, who in turn had received said amount on account of some sale transaction of the property. However, we note that these crucial facts, viz. firstly, that the loan was returned within a short span of two months and secondly, that the amount of Rs.16 lakhs received by Sh. Ravi Shekhar from his mother, who in turn had received the said amount on account of some property transaction, has not been considered by the Lower Authorities.

Similarly, so far as the loan amount of Rs.63.25 lakhs from assessee’s HUF is concerned, the learned counsel has submitted that the assessee had running account with his HUF concern and there were numerous transactions of receiving the loan and giving the loan to the said concern. The learned counsel has explained that the HUF concern of the assessee is in the business of Borwell digging and that the assessee, in his individual capacity, receives loans from its HUF concern as and when needed and returns back as per the business needs of HUF concern. He also submitted that it is not a case of any unexplained loan received from the HUF concern. We note that the aforesaid submissions of the assessee have not been looked into by the lower authorities.

So far as the loan of Rs.1.60 lakhs from one Sh. Arun Choudhary, the brother of the assessee is concerned, noting that the said amount is a meager amount and the lender is the brother of the assessee, we do not find any justification on the part of the AO for making the addition of such a meager amount by treating it as unexplained cash credit.

So far as the loan from assessee’s HUF, namely Sh. Anil Choudhary HUF and the loan from Sh. Ravi Shekhar is concerned, as discussed above, both the lower authorities have not given proper findings on the submissions of the assessee. Therefore, the issue relating to the loans from the aforesaid two parties is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)

With the above observation, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.