NANDKISHOR L. AGRAWAL,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

The appeal was fixed for hearing first on 13.06.2017 and the same was adjourned to 30.08.2017 at the request of assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee Shri S.N. Puranik had appeared on behalf of assessee. On 30.08.2017, 13.11.2017, 15.11.2017 and 05.02.2018, none appeared on behalf of assessee. Meanwhile, Shri S.N. Puranik stated before the Bench that he was not appearing on behalf of assessee and he withdrew his Power of Attorney. Thereafter, notice was sent to the assessee and also through learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue for hearing on 16.04.2018; but none appeared on the said date and the matter was adjourned to 26.06.2018, 19.09.2018 and thereafter to 28.11.2018. Various notices have been returned by the postal authorities and the last notice has been returned with remark ‘left’. The returned envelope along with AD are placed on record. The Counsel Shri S.N. Puranik again confirmed that he was not appearing for the assessee, in response to call from the office of learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. In such circumstances, we proceed to decide the present appeal ex-parte the assessee and after hearing the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.

The only issue raised in the present appeal is against the addition of ₹ 36 lakhs under section 68 of the Act.

Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had shown loan received from Shri Sandeepji Agrawal. The said loan of ₹ 36 lakhs was received during the year and the closing balance as on 31.03.2010 was ₹ 31 lakhs. The assessee was asked to furnish confirmation letter and he filed some documents. The Assessing Officer noted that the said confirmation letter did not bear signature of the lender, his PAN number and address of lender. Since no proper confirmation letter was filed, the addition of ₹ 36 lakhs was made in the hands of assessee under section 68 of the Act treating the said loan as unexplained cash credit.

In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee pointed out that he was making transaction with same creditor since long back and in the next year, he had made some repayments. The CIT(A) notes that the assessee has failed to file any confirmation duly signed from the lender and hence, has not proved the identity of the creditor, genuineness of transaction and capacity of the lender to advance the said loan. No further document was filed in the appellate proceedings and hence, the CIT(A) upheld the addition of ₹ 36 lakhs under section 68 of the Act.

The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A).

Before us, the assessee has failed to furnish any confirmation of the said loan creditor nor has discharged the onus cast upon him to establish the identity of the creditor, capacity of creditor and hence the genuineness of transaction is not proved. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal of

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed.