Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 48 - ITAT INDOREAddition u/s 68 - Unexplained loans - onus to establish the creditworthiness of the investor companies - none attended on behalf of the companies imparting loans in the enquiry to examine third party or verify the genuineness or creditworthiness of the loan providers could not be done and the loan providers have been found to be fake and not in existence - HELD THAT:- It appears from the records that the assessee received loans from all the parties through account payee cheques. Confirmation in respect of loans as received by the assessee was also obtained and placed before the Ld. CIT(A). The PAN of loan creditors, the copy of Income Tax Return, the Bank statement, Master records and balance sheet of those parties were duly placed before the CIT(A). Thus, the assessee has properly discharged its onus by providing the identity, creditworthiness and genuine of the unsecured loans as received. While confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO relying upon the Remand Report the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the investor companies has not established the source of funds from which the investment was ultimately made. Further that he has relied upon a judgment passed in the matter of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (3) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT] and came to the finding that the onus to establish the creditworthiness of the investor companies was not discharged by the assessee; the entire transaction made in that particular matter seemed bogus and lack credibility. AO though initiated enquiry but was not been able to proceed further since no one appeared on behalf of the investor companies and, therefore, finally the addition was confirmed. In the instant case by producing various documents the appellant had proved that balance of convenience was in its favour. Considering the entire aspect of the matter we find no rational for sustaining the addition made to the total income of the assessee on account of advance received from these parties solely on the reason that notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act either not served or no reply was received in response to such notices - the appellant by filing ample documentary evidences sought to justify the identity and creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions as entered into with these parties. It seems that the assessee satisfactorily discharged its primary onus cast upon it under Section 68 - Hence, the addition as made to the total income of the appellant under Section 68 of the Act on account of advance received from parties is not sustainable and, thus, deleted. Hence, assessee’s appeal is allowed.
|