Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 477 - ITAT AHMEDABADAdditional evidences in contravention to the provisions of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the learned CIT-A has called for the remand report from the AO. However, the AO in the remand report objected on the admission of the additional evidences filed by the assessee before the learned CIT-A. However, we note that the CIT-A admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee after placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti [2014 (3) TMI 151 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] We hold that the revenue erred in objecting the admission of the additional evidences. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT-A and accordingly we uphold the same. Hence the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. Addition u/s 68 on account loan which was held as unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT:- The identity of the party refers existence of such party which can be proved based on evidences. As such the identity of a party can be established by furnishing the name, address and PAN detail, bank details, ITR etc. The next stage comes to verify the genuineness of the transaction. Genuineness of transaction refers what has been asserted is true and authentic. A genuine transaction must be proved to be genuine in all respect not merely on a piece of a paper. The documentary evidences should not be used as a mask to cover the actual transaction or designed in a way to present the transaction as true but same is not. Genuineness of transaction can be proved by submitting confirmation of the party along details of mode of transaction but merely showing transaction carried out through banking channel is not sufficient. We are conscious about the fact that the provisions of Section 68 of the Act are deeming provisions which implies that there are certain transactions which are not the income of the assessee but these are deemed as income under the relevant provisions of the Act. Thus, we have to see the deeming provisions beyond the facts available on record. However, the question arises for the adjudication whether only the credit entries should only be considered for the purpose of cash credit entries as provided under section 68 of the Act after ignoring the debit entries. To our mind the debit entries cannot be set aside for determining the income of the assessee. We are of the opinion that, once repayment of the loan has been established based on the documentary evidence, the credit entries cannot be looked into isolation after ignoring the debit entries despite the debit entries were carried out in the year or later years. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT-A. Hence, the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. Addition being difference in Cash & Bank balance and being differences in current liabilities balances - HELD THAT:- As it is transpired that there is no grievance of the Revenue. Accordingly, no addition in the given case is warranted to be upheld. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT-A, and thus direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed.
|