Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The stated reply of the assessee was considered however the same was not found satisfactory by the AO because assessee neither furnished any confirmation nor did he furnish any details or whereabouts of such persons. Further, claim of the assessee to consider the same in peak was not considered because during the course of search and survey action no document, whatsoever was found suggesting nexus between the availability of cash funds and its subsequent utilization. The claim of the assessee was considered as flimsy and unsubstantiated, therefore, not accepted and thereby he proposed the addition of Rs. 65,65,000/- in two years.

(v) As far as the case of Sanjay Natani is concerned there is nothing on the excel sheet which suggest the claim of the appellant is acceptable.

(vi) Further, claim of the appellant to consider the same in peak is not acceptable because during the course of search and survey action no document, whatsoever was found suggesting nexus between availability of cash funds and its subsequent utilization.

In view of the above, the claim of the appellant is flimsy and unsubstantiated, therefore cannot be accepted. Since, the cash creditors remained unexplained and unverifiable therefore a sum of Rs. 14,61,42,000/- are treated as unexplained.cash credit u/s 68 of the 1.T. Act as mentioned in above mentioned table.

Therefore, appellant vide SCN dated 01.10.2018 was asked to produce such parties for verification it was also stated herein that in case appellant fails to produce such parties the same be considered as given out of your income from undisclosed sources.

In response appellant vide submission dated 13.12.2018, submitted that these are not loans given rather these transaction represents loan taken he however, expressed his inability to furnish confirmation of such parties.

The reply of the appellant was considered however the same is not found satisfactory due to the reason that, appellant neither furnished any confirmation nor did he furnish any details or whereabouts of such persons. Further, claim of the appellant to consider the same in peak is not acceptable because during the course of search and survey action no Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT document, whatsoever was found suggesting nexus between availability of cash funds and its subsequent utilization. The claim of the appellant is flimsy and unsubstantiated, therefore cannot be accepted. Since, the source of advancing cash loans to various person remained unexplained therefore the same is considered as given out of undisclosed income of the appellant and a sum of Rs. 2,74,50,000 is held unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the 1.T. Act for AY 2014- 15.

Further appellant neither furnished any confirmation nor did he furnish any details or whereabouts of such persons. Further, claim of the appellant to consider the same in peak is not acceptable because during the course of search and survey action no document, whatsoever was found suggesting nexus between availability of cash funds and its subsequent utilization. The claim of the appellant is flimsy and unsubstantiated, therefore cannot be accepted. Since, the source of advancing cash loans to various person remained unexplained therefore the same is considered as given out of undisclosed income of the appellant and a sum of Rs. 2,80,50,000/- is held unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act for AY 2014-15. Further, as appellant has not furnished any detail in respect of the person from whom the cash amount of Rs. 20700000/- has been received therefore same remain unexplained and held unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the 1.T. Act for AY 2014-15.