MANJU JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- Mumbai, for the assessment years 2003-2004, in the matter of order passed u/s.144 r.w.s.254 of I.T. Act. 2. Rival contentions have been herd and record perused. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the AO made addition of Rs.20,200/- on account of agricultural income by treating the same as income from other sources. The addition of Rs.2 lakhs has also been made u/s.68 on account of loan received from M/s Mahesh Jewellers on the plea that same was unexplained cash credit of assessee. By the impugned order, the CIT(A) had confirmed the order of AO, against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. We have considered rival contentions and found from the record that assessee was in receipt of loan from Mahesh Jewellers, proprietor Rajmal K. Jain during the assessment year 2003-04 under consideration. The loan was not of Rs.2 lakhs but it was a carried forward loan where in the amount was given and taken at various dates during the A.Y.2003-04 and the net balance outstanding is shown as Rs.2 lakhs as at 31-3-2003. We found that loan was received by account payee cheque from Bank of India. On 10-4-2002 there was a cheque of Rs.4 lakhs, on 22-4-2002, a cheque of Rs.38,617/- and on 14-12-2002 a cheque of Rs.3,50,000/- was received. Out of these payment assessee has repaid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cheque of HDFC Bank on 31-1-2003, there was a closing balance of Rs.2 lakhs on 31-3-2003. The required confirmation from Rajmal K. Jain, proprietor of Mahesh Jewellerls was filed before the lower authorities, who was assessed to tax. We had also verified the acknowledgement of return of income of Shri Rajmal Jain along with its Profit and Loss account and balance sheet duly indicating the loan amount. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit for the addition of Rs.2 lakhs made by the AO. 4. Ground with regard to treatment of agricultural income as income from other sources was not pressed by ld. AR, therefore, same is dismissed in limine. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the open court on this 21/09/2016. (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (R.C.SHARMA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER