SHRI NIRMAL SHARAD MUTHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri Nirmal Sharad Mutha, V The Assistant Plot No.83, Manik Nagar, s Commissioner of Income Nagar – Pune Road, Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar – 414001. Ahmednagar. PAN: AFVPM3572R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Prasad Bhandari &Ms.Payal Rathi – AR’s Revenue by Shri Manoj Tripathi - DR Date of hearing 12/12/2024 Date of pronouncement 20/12/2024 आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-2. Pune erred in confirming the addition wrongly made by the Ld. Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs.25.00.00 towards unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act inspite of the fact that all the necessary conditions prescribed under section 68 are fulfilled. Therefore, addition confirmed of Rs.25,00,000 may please be deleted.

2. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-2, Pune erred in confirming the addition wrongly made by the Ld. Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs.25,00,00 towards unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act without appreciating the submission made by the assessee. Therefore, addition confirmed of Rs.25,00,000 may please be deleted.

3. The Appellate craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Submission of Ld.AR: 2. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that assessee had obtained Rs.25,00,000/- as unsecured loan from Daksha Diamonds. Assessee filed copy of Confirmation duly signed by Daksha Diamond, Copy of Bank statement, copy of Return of Income of Daksha Diamond. The loan was through RTGS. Thus, assessee had established identity genuineness and credit worthiness. Ld.AR also submitted that he may kindly be permitted to file a paper book containing additional evidence which could not be filed due to the illness of the assessee. Ld.AR submitted that the Loan has been repaid and filed copy of ledger account to prove the same. Ld.AR filed copy of Affidavit of 2 Bhanwarlal Jain retracting the statement made before DDIT.

Submission of Ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue submitted that this case pertains to the Accommodation entry provided by Bhanwarlal’s concern. Ld.DR explained the modus- operandi of Mr.Bhawarlala Jain. Ld.DR submitted that the evidence in the form of bank transactions have been created to make the Bogus Loan appear as Genuine. Ld.DR strongly relied on the order of the AO and ld.CIT(A).

Findings and Analysis: 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

4.1 In this case the assessee had filed Return of Income for A.Y.2008-09 on 18/02/2009. Assessee’s case was reopened by issuing notice u/s.148 dated 27/03/2015. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer held that Loan of Rs.25,00,000/- is bogus and made an addition u/s 68 of the Act.The impugned Loan was claimed to be given by Daksha Diamond which is a concern belonging to Bhanwarlal Jain group. There was a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act in the case of Bhanwarlal Jain group. 3 4.2 It is observed that the Assessee has filed additional evidence, in the form of Retraction affidavit of Mr.Jain and repayment ledger. Ld.AR filed copy of medical certificate to prove that the assessee was ill for a long period. Since the additional evidence has bearing on deciding the appeal and we are convinced that there was sufficient cause for not filling such evidence before the AO, we admit the additional evidence.

4.3 It is also noted by us that the Assessee’s case has been set aside for A.Y.2012-13 by ITAT in ITA No.125/PUN/2023.

4.4 However, since these evidences were not filed before the AO/CIT(A), they had no opportunity to verify the documents. Therefore, in the interest of Justice, we set-aside the Assessment Order to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity to the Assessee. The Assessee shall file all the documents before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

4.5 In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Condonation of delay : 5. There was delay of 913 days in filling appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed affidavit. Assessee has filed Medical Certificate of a MD Doctor certifying his prolonged illness. In these facts we condone the delay. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th December, 2024.