TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of the assessee who has borrowed money from few known lenders whose creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction were matters for the assessee to prove. The assessee having failed to discharge the burden of proof, the assessing officer, the 1st appellate authority and the Tribunal were fully justified in making the additions and confirming the same. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No. 81 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 19-9-2017 - MR. ANTONY DOMINIC AND MR. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. For The Appellant : Sri. P. Raghunath Sri.Premjit Nagendran For The Respondents : Sri. Jose Joseph, SC For Income Tax R1 By Adv. Sri. P. K. R. Menon, Sr. Counsel, GOI(Taxes) JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. This appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Sudhakara Gupta ₹ 94,000 6. M.Viswanathan Loan Rs.235,000 7. Ramakrishna Rao Rs.493,500 8. Rajeswara Ammal Rs.517,000 9. M.M.Bankers ₹ 50,000 10. Satheesh Loan Rs.100,000 Total Rs.32,82,500 Since no proper loan confirmations have been filed in respect of the above 10 parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties mentioned above at Sl.Nos.1 to 4 have submitted confirmation letters directly also, none of the said parties have either submitted any bank account extracts or any evidence regarding the nature and source of the money paid to the assessee as loan. Though the assessee's AR was specifically requested for to produce the parties for personal examination, the assessee did not produce any of them. Hence the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the above said parties have not been proved and as such it appears that the said loans are not genuine. The loans taken from Sundaram Finance of ₹ 450,000/- and ₹ 600,000/- respectively and from Vijaya Bank of ₹ 500,000/- are towards financing car purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is not right in submitting that he has discharged the burden cast on him under Sec.68 by submitting the Copies of Ledger Folios maintained by the Creditors in their books of accounts, in respect of the appellant? 4. We heard the counsel for the assessee and the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue. 5. While according to the counsel for the assessee, the assessee having produced the entire materials available at his possession it was for the assessing officer to have made enquiries and on that basis decided the claim of the assessee, on the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue contended that the assessee having not discharged his burden in proving the three r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the genuineness of the transactions. In other words, even if the documents produced by the assessee are taken at its face value, those documents at best proved the identity of the creditors and nothing more. Law is also trite that the fact that the amounts have been received by the assessee through banking channels or that amounts received by the assessee is reflected in the accounts of the lender are of no moment insofar as the discharge of burden under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is concerned. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee having produced the aforesaid materials before the assessing officer, it was for the assessing officer to make enquiries and satisfy himself of the creditworthiness and genuine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can it make a non-genuine transaction genuine. In that view of the matter, the question before us is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. 9. Learned counsel for the assessee relied on the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. and others [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) which has confirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petitions and the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gagandeep Infrastructure Private Limited [2017] 394 ITR 680 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Orchid Industries Private Limited [2017] 397 ITR 136 (Bom). 10. However, a reading of these judgments would show that in these cases t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
