- (1.) This Income Tax appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'Tribunal") dt. 22nd May, 2009 by which, appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) [for short, "CIT(A)"] was partly allowed and the cash credit of Rs. 24,86,866 claimed by the Assessee, which was disallowed by the AO, was allowed and the AO was directed to delete the addition of the said amount made under Section 68 of the IT Act.
(2.) Shri R.B. Mathur, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has argued that the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in reversing the order of the AO, which was reasoned and based on correct appreciation of documents and material on record. While Tribunal has not given any good reason to take a different view, AO has given detailed reasons for assessment by disallowing the cash credit amounting to Rs. 24,86,866 alleged to have been taken from eight different persons as 'unsecured loan'. Claim made by the Assessee in his return to that effect was rightly disallowed by the AO because when notice was given to such eight persons, only one of them, namely, K.K. Sharma appeared in response to the notice under Section 131 and made statement on 27th Feb., 2002. Explanation was unsatisfactory raising doubt about number of facts as to how and in what manner he secured the said money. Explanation that was given was that he received Rs. 2 lacs from his grandfather out of which, Rs. 1 lac was taken back by his grandfather and his grandfather received this money from sale of the property but he failed to prove as to whom this property was sold. No details of property were furnished. Although, other persons did not appear in response to the notice before the AO but they filed confirmations by way of affidavits admitting advancement of loan to Assessee. Unless, it was proved that those persons were capable of earning such money from known sources and could advance the loan, claim made by the Assessee could not be accepted on its mere ipse dixit. CIT(A) rightly upheld the order passed by the AO. Tribunal however erred in law in allowing the appeal to that extent on ground No. 2.
(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the Revenue and perused the material available on record.;