Brief of the case
In course of assessment, AO made addition under Section 68. CIT (A) remanded matter back for obtaining confirmation of creditors. AO gave a remand report that he was satisfied with confirmation given by creditors and loan appeared to be genuine. CIT(A) relying upon said report , deleted addition. Assessee repeatedly submitted that matter remain unverified. Tribunal held that revenue’s appeal against said order was totally merit-less and deserved to be dismissed.
Facts of the case
- The search and seizure operation u/s 132 was carried out in case of another assessee i.e. Sh.Mukesh , wherein details of unsecured loan was found, in the name of assessee.
- A notice u/s 153C was issued requiring the assessee to provide the details in regard to its income derived mainly from interest income. As a result thereof return was filed by the assessee .
- The AO observed that the assessee did not filed supporting evidence of confirmations of loans taken from the parties. Accordingly he concluded that the genuineness of the transactions was not proved. Thus, he opined that those were just accommodation entries and therefore, he made addition u/s 68 in assesse’s income.
- The CIT(A) remanded back the matter to AO.
- In the remand report, AO confirmed that he was satisfied with confirmation given by creditors and loan appeared to be genuine. Further, CIT(A) relying upon said report , deleted addition.
- The revenue, however challenged the said order of CIT(A) on the ground of admission of fresh evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1963 on facts.
Contention of Assessee
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
