Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 4 - ITAT MUMBAIAddition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credits - allegations that, loan was received from dummy company/ entities - no inquiry by issuing notices under Sec. 133(6) or summons under Sec. 131 - HELD THAT:- Assessee had placed on record supporting documentary evidence to substantiate the authenticity of the loan transactions viz. confirmation letters, bank statements, financial statements of the lender parties, and thus had discharged the onus that was cast upon it - no adverse inferences could have been drawn by the A.O without making any inquiry by issuing notices under Sec. 133(6) or summons under Sec. 131 of the Act. As regards the admission of the undisclosed income by the director of the assessee company in his statement recorded in the course of the survey proceedings, it was observed by the Tribunal that a disclosure obtained in the course of survey de hors corroborative evidence cannot be a conclusive proof for making an addition in the hands of the assessee. Tribunal on the basis of his aforesaid observations had in the case of the aforementioned ‘sister concern’ of the assessee company wherein identical facts were involved, had upheld the order of the CIT(A) and therein concluded that the A.O in the absence of the corroborative evidence was not justified in treating the loans received by the assessee before them as unexplained cash credit under Sec. 68. CIT(A) after deliberating at length on the issue under consideration had rightly concluded that as the assessee had discharged the ‘onus’ that was cast upon it under Sec.68 therefore, the A.O was not justified in treating the loans received from the aforementioned parties as unexplained cash credits under Sec.68 - Decided in favour of assessee
|