Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ (SMC
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]
आदेश / O R D E R
These are appeals filed by the assessee directed against an order dated 15.03.2016 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Chennai.
Assessment for the impugned assessment years were redone 2. by the ld. Assessing Officer based on a Tribunal direction dated 31.12.1991. This Tribunal had directed the ld. Assessing Officer to to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 2 -: consider the additional evidence and information filed by the assessee and to redo the assessments. Accordingly, the ld. Assessing Officer had redone the assessments. Appeal of the assessee for assessment year 1982-83 is taken up first for disposal.
Four grounds have been raised by the assessee of which 3. ground No.1 is general needing no specific adjudication.
Vide its ground 2, assessee assails an addition of �90,000/- being a loan claimed to have been received from one Mrs. Kamala N.
Katri, which was considered as undisclosed income by the lower authorities.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there were two 5. credits in the name of Mrs. Kamala N. Katri viz �40,000/- on 09.10.1981 and �50,000/- on 15.12.1981. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee had filed confirmation letter from the said creditor. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the confirmation was disbelieved for the sole reason that the creditor had shifted to Kolkota and could not be found in the address given by the assessee. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, Mrs. Kamala N.
Katri was herself an assessee and debtors shown by her in the Trial Balance filed by her alongwith her return for assessment year 1982-83, had the name of the assessee with a balance of �35,000/-. Thus, to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 3 -: according to him the addition at the best ought have been made for the difference only.
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly 6.
supporting the orders of the authorities below submitted that assessee could not show genuineness of the credit nor the creditworthiness of Mrs. Kamal N. Katri .
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. The reason why the addition was confirmed is clear from para 8 of the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which is reproduced hereunder:-
‘’The credit in the name of Mrs. Kamala N. Katri: The assessee showed credits in the name of Mrs.Kamala N. Katri (L.F.55) at Rs. 40,000/-- and Rs. 50,000/- on 9.10.81 and 15.12.81 respectively. The assessee originally submitted a copy of the account showing the address as 10, Narsinga Puram St. Madras. As per the Income- tax records of the concerned party, the address was shown as 2, Audiappa Naicken st. Madras. The creditor was not found at the said address. The assessee's representative later submitted the Xerox copies of confirmation letters giving the old address: address as NO.10, Narasingapuram Street, Madras-2 and with a remark that "now shifted to Calcutta and we shall try to find the address and let you know,". Thus the assessee was giving different addresses at different time. As this transaction appeared to be doubtful, the assesssee was asked to produce the creditor. For this purpose a number of opportunities were given to the assessee. However, the creditor was never produced. The onus was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the creditor which he had failed to discharge, Even otherwise, the Income-tax records of Smt. Kamal N. Katri revealed a different picture. The total sundry debtors as on 31.3.82 as per the Trial Balance of Mrs N. Katri filed before to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 4 -: the Income-tax authorities was only Rs.35,000/-- whereas the assessee was showing this at an amount of Rs. 90,000/-. The creditor did not have the funds to finance the assessee and its credit worthiness was never proved. Under these circumstances, the credits of Rs. 90,000/- shown on 9.10.81 and 15.12.81 were found to be unsubstantiated and, hence, was treated as bogus credit entry which was added back to the income of the assessee by the AO as undisclosed income of the assessee’’.
It is an admitted position that Trial Balance as on 31.03.1982 of Mrs. Kamal N. Katri, available with the Department, clearly reflected assessee as a debtor for �35,000/-. Hence I am of the opinion that the addition that could have been made was no more than �55,000/-.
Assessee had also filed a confirmation which was not found to be bogus. In such circumstances, I direct the ld. Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to �55,000/-. Ground No.2 of the assessee is partly allowed.
Vide its ground number three, assessee assails additions of �3,70,456/- and �1,17,660/- being credits in bank account No.578 and bank account No.490 with Broadway Branch of Canara Bank, Chennai.
Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that two additions 9. were made for credits in account No.578 and 490 with Canara Bank, Broadway Branch, Madras. As per the ld. Assessing Officer, these accounts, though held in the name of the assessee was neither to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 5 -: opened nor operated by it. In any case, as per the ld. Authorised Representative, these bank accounts were found during a search proceedings on one Shri.N.K. Mohnot who was the son of the Kartha of the assessee (HUF). As per the ld. Authorised Representative, materials found from the premises of Shri. N.K. Mohnot could not have been used for an addition in the hands of the assessee. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that presumption u/s.132(4A) of the Act could be taken only against the person who was searched, and not for fastening a liability on the assessee who was a third party. Relying on an order of the Tribunal in the case of the daughter-in-law of the Kartha of the assessee namely Mrs. Meena Kumar Mohnot vs. ACIT (ITA Nos. 1024 to 1027/Mds/2016, dated 07.06.2017), ld. Authorised Representative submitted that neither Section 132(4A) nor Section 292C of the Act could be used for making an addition in the hands of the assessee, based on material found in the course of a search of another person.
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that bank account Nos.578 and 490 with Canara Bank, Broadway Branch, Madras were opened and operated by the assessee. According to him just for a reason that these bank accounts were found during the search of premises of the son of the Kartha of the assessee (HUF), these could not be ignored. As per the ld. Departmental to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 6 -:
Representative, assessee was unable to explain the credits in these bank accounts. Hence according to him, the additions were rightly done.
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Assessee had all along denied operation of the bank accounts No.578 and 490 with Canara Bank, Broadway Branch, Madras. Assessee had also stated that the signature appearing in the account opening forms were not that of its Kartha. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his order has given a finding that transactions in account No.578 reflected cheques issued to the proprietorship concerns of Shri. N.K. Mohnot, namely M/s. Monnot & Co, which was subjected to a search u/s.132 of the Act.
This Tribunal on a similar addition made in the case of Mrs. Meena Kumar Mohnot, who is the daughter-in-law of the partner of the assessee HUF, in to 1027/Mds/2016, dated 07.06.2017, held as under at paragraph 7.4 of its order:-
‘’7.4 We heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The books of accounts were seized from the residence of Mr. N.K Mohnot son of the assessee who is residing in Flat No.65, Biya complex Pursawalkam High Road, Madras and Mohnot & co, 1st floor,No.16 Raaman street, Madras. This is evident from the Panchnama drawn from the residential premises and business premises, which is not disputed by the Revenue. The assessee in her statement recorded in December, 1994 and stated that she is ordinarily residing in Jodhpur but not in Madras. The assessee has given the address in the Income Tax Returns No.38, College Road, Nungumbakkam, Chennai-600006, for the purpose of filing Income Tax Returns and according to the assessee, there was no search to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 7 -: carried out by the Income Tax Department in the address of the assessee where she is residing either in Rajasthan or the address in Chennai. The department also could not place any evidence to controvert the above submission of the assessee. We have called for the records and the Panchnama of the searched premises, and the Department could not place any record to show that there was a search u/s.132 in the premises of No.38 College Road, Nungumbakkam, Chennai or in residential premises of the assessee in Chennai or any other place connected with the assessee. As stated earlier, the books of accounts were seized from the premises of Mr.N.K. Mohnot and as per the provisions of Sec.132(4A) and Sec.292C, the presumptions are applicable to Shri N.K, Mohnot, since the books of accounts were found in the premises of Mohnot. For ready reference, we extract the relevant provisions of Sec.132(4A) as under: (4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may be presumed— (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true ; and (iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested.]
Similarly, Sec.292(C) which is Parimateria of Sec.132(4A) in respect of presumptions of assets books of accounts, etc., reads as under: [Presumption as to assets, books of account, etc. 292C. 15[(1)] Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132 16[or survey under section 133A], it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed— to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 8 -:
(i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested.] [(2) Where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to the requisitioning officer in accordance with the provisions of section 132A, then, the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply as if such books of account, other documents or assets which had been taken into custody from the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of sub- section (1) of section 132A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132.] Both the sections 132(4A) and Sec.292C presume that the books of accounts, documents found and seized from the premises of a person belong to the person who was under search u/s.132. In the case of the assessee, there was no search carried out u/s.132 of the Act, either in Chennai or in Jodhpur where she is ordinarily residing. The Department has not brought on record to show that she is residing with her son in Flat No.65, Parusawalakkam, Chennai or any other premises where the search u/s.132 was carried out in connection with N.K.Mohnot and others. No statement u/s.132(4A) was recorded from Mr. N.K. Mohnot with regard to the seized books of accounts of the assessee and confronted with the assessee regarding contents in the seized material and to make her responsible for the contents of the seized books. The assessee has flatly denied the books of accounts and were stated to be not in her hand writing. The normal course of action would be to record statement from shri N.K. Mohnot who was searched u/s 132 with regard to the contents of the note books and to confront the contents of the statement with the assessee and to draw inference. But no such exercise was done in this case. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that there was action u/s132 of Income tax act in the assessee case and exercise has been made by the Revenue to prove that the incriminating material was belonged to the assessee with the relevant statements recorded u/s 132(4) or u/s 131 of the IT Act, we are of the considered view that that the presumption to hold that he books of accounts belonged to the assessee u/s 132(4A) of I.T. Act cannot be made applicable to the assessee. Further the AO also caused the enquiries in to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 9 -: respect of the loans and advances stated to have been made to the parties and received replies denying the transactions. Therefore, we hold that the addition made on the basis of presumption u/s.132(4A) in the hands of the assessee cannot be sustained and deleted. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT v. Anil Khandelwal reported in 93 CCH 0042. Therefore the assessee’s appeal on this ground for the A.Ys 1980-81, 82-83, 83-84 and 1984-85 are allowed’’.
I am of the opinion that presumption u/s.132(4A) of the Act could have been taken only against person who was searched. The bank account Nos. 578 and 490 with Canara Bank, Broadway Branch, Chennai were not impounded from the premises of the assessee.
Assessee had along denied opening or operating these accounts. The additions if at all it could be made, was only in the hands of Shri. N.K.
Mohnot and not the assessee. I am of the opinion that additions for credits in these bank accounts could not have been made in the hands of the assessee. Such additions stands deleted. Ground No. 3 of the assessee is allowed.
Vide its ground No.4, assessee assails on an addition of 12.
�60,000/- claimed by it as repayment received from debtors.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that subject addition 13. comprised of �10,000/- shown by the assessee as repayment of debtor balance by M/s. Balaji Plastic and Metal Enterprises, 110, Ennore High Road, Madras-21 and �50,000/- by Shri. R.N. Subramanian, 3, Sunkumar Agraharam Street, Madras-2. Relying on the trial Balance to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 10 -: as on 31.03.1981, and statement of account filed by the assessee alongwith its return for assessment year 1981-82, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that a sum of �15,000/- was shown as due from M/s. Balaji Plastic and Metal Enterprises and �50,000/- as due from Shri. R.N. Subramanian. According to him, the additions were made, disregarding the opening balances, solely for a reason that assessee had recorded receipts of the amounts on a date which was at variance with what was mentioned by the concerned debtors. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee had by mistake recorded the refund of loan in its books a few dates prior to the actual receipt.
However, according to him, the amounts were undisputedly received by the assessee, and just for a mistake in recording the date, the addition ought not have been made.
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that 14.
receipts recorded by the assessee from debtors were months prior to actual payments made by such debtors. Hence, according to him, the addition was rightly made.
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the 15. orders of the authorities below. It is not disputed by the Revenue that M/s. Balaji Plastic and Metal Enterprises had paid �10,000/- and Shri.
R.N. Subramanian had paid �50,000/- to the assessee during the to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 11 -: relevant previous year. These debtors were recorded in the books of the account of the assessee. Assessee had mentioned in a letter to the ld. Assessing Officer that the date of receipt was mistakenly recorded due to errors committed by its accountant. There is no case for the Revenue that the receipts if recorded on the correct dates would have resulted in any deficit cash in the preceding months. This being so, in my opinion the addition ought not have been made just for an error committed in the date of recording the actual receipts from the debtors. The factum of receipts were not doubted, and the year of receipt was also the same. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the addition was not warranted. Such addition stands deleted. Ground No.4 of the assessee is allowed.
Now, I take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment 16. year 1983-84. Five grounds have been raised of which ground No.1 is general, needing no specific adjudication.
Though its ground No.2, assessee assails an addition of 17.
�80,000/- being a credit standing in the name of one M/s. Hindusthan Electronics.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that M/s. Hindusthan 18.
Electronics was the proprietary concern of Smt. Hema Mohnot, daughter–in-law of the Kartha of the assessee HUF. As per the ld. to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 12 -:
Authorised Representative, M/s. Hindusthan Electronics had given a confirmation letter to the ld. Assessing Officer. Ld. Authorised Representative also submitted that the said confirmation letter gave the PA number of Smt. Hema Mohnot who was the proprietrix of M/s.
Hindusthan Electronics. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that credit worthiness of Smt. Hema Mohnot was not disputed by the lower authorities. According to him, assessee having produced confirmation from the party, the credit ought not have been disbelieved.
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that confirmation from M/s. Hindusthan Electronics was not made available to the lower authorities. According to him, books of accounts of Smt.
Hema Mohnot did not have any entry for any loan given by her to the assessee. Thus, according to him, the credit was a bogus one and rightly added by the lower authorities.
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the 20. orders of the authorities below. Assessee had on 05.04.1982 shown in its books, a loan of �80,000/- from M/s. Hindusthan Electronics. Ld. Assessing Officer was of the view that the said proprietorship concern was not in existence before 01.04.1983 and therefore the credit could not be believed. However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 13 -: had in para 6 of his order clearly mentioned that assessee had filed a copy of the confirmation letter. What was mentioned in this letter is reproduced hereunder:-
Confirmation Letter This is to confirm that we, Hindustan Electronics, 115, Choolai High Road, Madras 600 112. (Now at No.16, Ramanan Road, Madras 600 079) had advanced a loan of �80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand Only) to M/s. P.P. Dass & Sons, No.16, Ramanan Road, Madras 600 079. The balance to their debit stands at �80,000/- as on 31.03.1983.
Further, we are assessed to Income Tax by Income- tax Officer, Central Circle II, on his P.A. No.47-055-PX-5462.
For Hindustan Electronics,
Sd/- Proprietor. A reading of the above letter clearly show that the concerned creditor had given her PA number and also confirmed the credit. There is no finding by the Revenue that creditor was not a person of means. Only reason why credit was denied was that the creditor had come into existence only on 01.04.1983. This conclusion was drawn by the ld. Assessing Officer based on a verification of a cash book and ledger for the period 01.07.1980 to 31.03.1982 found from the premises of Shri.
N.K. Mohnot, which were impounded by the Department. As per the ld. Assessing Officer these books did not anywhere mention M/s.
Hindusthan Electronics. However, in my opinion books of accounts of a proprietory concern is different from the books of accounts maintained by the proprietor. Just because, the latter did not have to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 14 -: the name of the concern would not mean that the concern as such did not exist. In my opinion, no cogent reason was given by the lower authorities for disbelieving the credit and confirmation. Addition of �80,000/- stands deleted. Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press its ground No.3 21. which is on an addition of �65,500/-, being a loan advanced to M/s.
Vummidiars Jewel Craft. Ground No.3 is therefore dismissed as not pressed.
Vide its ground No.4, grievance raised by the assessee is on 22. an addition of �80,200/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer under the head ‘’undisclosed income’’.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition was made were for repayment made by two debtors named M/s.
Prakash Textile and M/s. Rajlakshmi Paper Company. As per the ld. Authorised Representative the trial Balance of the assessee as on 31.03.1982 filed alongwith its return for assessment year 1982-83, clearly reflected M/s. Prakash Textile as a debtor for �50,200/- and Rajlakshmi Paper Company as a debtor for �10,000/-. According to him, realization of debtors, atleast to the extent of �60,200/-, could not have been disbelieved. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the addition had to be deleted. to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 15 -:
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that 24.
assessee failed to furnish any evidence for substantiating the claim of receipts. As per the ld. Departmental Representative , even address of the two parties were not mentioned by the assessee. Thus, according to him, the additions were rightly made and confirmed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Trial Balance of the assessee as on 31.03.1982, filed alongwith its return for assessment year 1982-83 do show M/s. Prakash Textile as a debtor for �50,200/- and Rajlakshmi Paper Company as a debtor for �10,000/-. This has not been disputed by the Revenue. When a debtor repays the loan, it is not akin to a fresh credit. A person who is receiving, refund of debt cannot be fastened with an onus to prove the source of the debtor. Assessee had shown �60,200/- as opening debtors in the name of M/s. Prakash Textile and Rajlakshmi Paper Company. Repayment to this extent could not have been disbelieved. Therefore I restrict the addition to a sum of �20,000/-. Addition to the extent of �60,200/- stands deleted. Ground No.4 of the assessee stands partly allowed. to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 16 -:
Vide its ground No.5, grievance of the assessee is on an 26. addition made for deposits in account No.578 of Canara Bank, Broadway Branch, Madras.
There is a similar ground raised by the assessee for assessment year 1982-83. I have already held in para 11 above, that addition for credits in this bank account could not have been made in the hands of the assessee. For the very same reasons mentioned in the said para, I delete the addition. Ground No.5 of the assessee is allowed.
Now, I take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 1984-85. Assessee has altogether raised three grounds of which ground No.1 is general needing no specific adjudication.
Through its grounds 2 & 3, assessee assails an addition of 29.
�5,99,000/- made for unexplained credits.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this addition comprised of a principal amount of �5,60,000/- and interest of �39,000/-. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, credits were from the following parties:- a M/s. Uma Enterprises �1,41,000 b M/s. D.R. Enterprises �1,40,000 c Sri. Pradeep M. Shah �1,00,000 d Sri Kamal H. Shah �90,000 e Shri. M. Gulab �89,000 �5,60,000 to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 17 -:
Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that assessee had furnished confirmation letters from these parties. According to him, confirmation letters filed by the assessee in the case of Pradeep M.
Shah, Kamal H Shah and M. Gulah gave the full address of these persons as well as their PA number. Despite this, as per the ld. Authorised Representative, the credits were disbelieved. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee had discharged its onus, for proving the credits and the additions were unjustified.
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly 31.
supported the orders of the lower authorities.
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the 32. orders of the authorities below. Reason why the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustained the addition of �5,99,000/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer, appears at para 19 of his order and this is reproduced hereunder:-
‘’19. Regarding the addition of Rs.5,60,000/-- + Rs. 39,OOO/- on account of the unexplained credits in the name of six different individuals and concerns as reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee, the action of the AO is found to be reasonable and bonafide. The assessee had furnished confirmation letters from these parties but failed to furnish the relevant Ledger accounts and their complete addresses in the case of two creditors. The income tax particulars were also not furnished. The verification carried out at the given addresses proved that no such parties existed there. The assessee was asked to produce these sundry creditors before him for examination but the same was not complied with. The AR even questioned that under which authority the AO was directing him to produce the creditors in person before him. The AR expressed his inability to produce these creditors in person before the to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 18 -:
AO. In the case of M/S Uma Enterprises and M/S D.R. Enterprises, it was stated by the assessee that these parties had shifted to Delhi. Their present address at Delhi was not furnished. From the above, It was .clear that the assess~e was not ready to co-operate with the Assessing Officer in substantiating its claim because of the evident reasons. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the AO was right in holding these creditors as bogus and also lacking the creditworthiness where the creditors actually existed. Even during the appellate proceeding, the assessee has not furnished any cogent material evidence to substantiate its contentions. Hence, it is proved that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast. Accordingly, the action of the ld. Assessing Officer is confirmed and addition of ₹5,60,000/- + ₹39,000/- is sustained’’.
Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) mentions that on verification made by the Department in the address given by the assessee it was found that the parties did not exist. At this juncture, it would be apposite to have a look at the confirmation letters given by Pradeep M. Shah, Kamal H Shah and M. Gulab. These confirmation letters are reproduced hereunder:-
Pradeep M. Shah:- Confirmation Letter I Pradeep M. Shah Kartha of M/s. Pradeep M. Shah (HUF) confirm that I have made a loan of �1,00,000/- (� One Lakh Only) to M/s. P.P. Dass & Sons, No.38, College Road, Madras 600 006. The debit balance of their account as on 31.03.1984 is �1,00,000/-. Further, we are assessed to Income Tax on GIR No.10212-P by the 10th Income Tax Officer, City Circle III, Madras -6.
We hereby undertake to appear before the Income tax Authorities to give evidence to the said advance made.
Place:- Madras for Pradeep M. Shah (HUF) Date : 6.12.91 Katha.
P.A. No.14, Sydenhams Road, Madras 112. Kamal H Shah:-
Confirmation Letter I Kamal M. Shah Kartha of M/s. Kamal H. . Shah (HUF) confirm that I have made a loan of �90,000/- (� Ninety Thousand Only) to M/s. P.P. to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 19 -:
Dass & Sons, No.38, College Road, Madras 600 006. The debit balance of their account as on 31.03.1984 is �90,000/-. Further, we are assessed to Income Tax on GIR No.10214-K by the 10th Income Tax Officer, City Circle III, Madras -6.
We hereby undertake to appear before the Income tax Authorities to give evidence to the said advance made.
Place:- Madras for Kamal H. Shah (HUF) Date : 6.12.91 Katha. P.A. No.14, Sydenhams Road, Madras 112. M. Gulab
Confirmation Letter I M. Gulab confirm that I have made a loan of �89,000/- (�Eighty Nine Thousand Only) to M/s. P.P. Dass & Sons, No.38, College Road, Madras 600 006. The debit balance of their account as on 31.03.1984 is �89,000/-. I am assessed to Income Tax on P.A.NO.47-073-PT- 6593 by the 9th Income Tax Officer, City Circle VII, Madras -34.
Further, I hereby undertake to appear before the Income tax Authorities to give evidence to the said advance made.
Place:- No. 8, Basin Water Street, Madras -79. (M. GULAB) Date: 6.12.1991
P.A. No.6, Vinayaka, Madaly Street, Madras 79.
These three parties had given either GIR number or PA number. They had also given the name of the Assessing Officer with whom they were assessed. In my opinion, assessee having given the confirmations, which carried the necessary details, had discharged it’s onus to prove the credits from Pradeep M. Shah, Kamal H. Shah and M. Gulab. Revenue, if it doubted the veracity of the claim could have easily verified it from the assessment records of these parties. Having to 1697/Mds/2016 :- 20 -: chosen not to do so, in my opinion, ld. Assessing Officer could not have considered the credits to be not genuine. However, in the case of Uma Enterprises and D.R. Enterprises confirmations filed by the assessee did not give any details regarding their assessment circle.
Nor was their PAN were available. Hence, the confirmation letters in respect of Uma Enterprises and D.R. Enterprises in my opinion were rightly rejected by the lower authorities. I therefore delete addition aggregating to �2,79,000/- pertaining to Pradeep M. Shah, Kamal H.
Shah and M. Gulab, while sustaining the balance addition of 3,20,000/-. Grounds 2 & 3 of the assessee are partly allowed.
To summarize the result, appeals of the assessee for all the 33. three years are partly allowed. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 17th day of April, 2018, at Chennai.