SHRI ANIL R THAMPI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(3)(1), MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1. The Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and in facts by confirming the total addition of Rs.4,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, being loan taken from Akshay Thampi and Mr. Kmarusaman amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- and 2,50,000/- respectively as unexplained cash credit us/ 68 of the Act without appreciating fact that the appellant had submitted all the documentary evidences to prove genuineness, identity and credit worthiness of the loan parties. A.Y.2011-12

2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 21.07.2011 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.4,28,143/- for the A.Y. 2011-12. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.The case was selected for scrutiny. Thereafter, notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was individual and during the year under consideration, the assessee has shown the profit from consultancy business, income under the head income from house property and bank interest income under the head income from other sources. On verification, it was found that the assessee has taken the loan 9,35,000/-. The assessee was asked to confirm the loan. The assessee explained the loan by virtue of letter dated 20.12.2013 mentioned below: - “a.Rs.3,85,000/- has been taken from my wife, Mrs. Snehachitra Anil Thampi Copies of confirmation and income tax return have been enclosed. b. Rs.1,50,000/- has been taken from my son Mr. Akshay Anil Thampi, copy of confirmation has been enclosed herewith. Mr. Akshay Anil Tampi was not filing return but please find copy of income tax return for A.Y.2012-13 which reflects the loan. He is commercial plot license holder. c. Rs.2,50,000/- has been taken from Mr. Kamarusaman d. Rs.1,50,000/- has been taken from Mr. Shashidharan. K. 14.06.2010 Rs.25,000 16.08.2010 Rs.25,000 13.012.2013 Rs.25,000 11.01.2011 Rs.50,000 11.03.2011 Rs.25,000 The above amount have been deposited in my HDFC Bank account no.02391000029483 In all the loan confirmation submitted by the assessee, dates on which loans were given are not mentioned.”

4. Since the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the loan, therefore, the said loan was declined and added to the income of the assessee. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) A.Y.2011-12 who partly allowed the claim of the assessee and rejected the claim of loan of Rs.1,50,000/- M/s.Akshay Thampi and 2,50,000/- from Mr. Kumarsaman. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.

5. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. We noticed that the assessee took the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from his son Akshay Thampi. Copy of confirmation was also filed before the AO. Mr. Akshay Thampi also filed the copy of return of income in which the loan has been reflected. He was the commercial pilot license holder. In this regard, the sufficient evidence has been filed. There is no plausible explanation on record in which circumstances the claim of the assessee was declined. The assessee also took the loan in sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from Mr. Kumarusaman. Mr. Kumarusaman has also filed the confirmation of loan of Rs.2,50,000/- given to the Mr. Anil Thampi. They were having a joint family business. The loan was given through cheques from the bank account. The claim cannot be declined on the basis of this facts that loan was given by the family member of the appellant. Necessary enquiry is required to be conducted and sufficient evidence is required to be brought on record to decline the claim of the assessee. There should be plausible reason to decline the claim of the assessee. The claim of the assessee is not liable to be declined on the basis of assumption and presumption. The proper and satisfactory explanation has been given, therefore, we are of the view that the claim of the assessee has wrongly been declined, therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) and allowed the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue.