TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee by: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R Revenue by: Shri Nilabhra Dasgupta, Sr.D.R ORDER PER BENCH: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad dated 10/01/2017 (in short Ld. CIT(A) ) arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein- after referred to as the Act ) dt.17/02/2015 relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. The Authorities below have erred in law and facts by Disallowing sum of ₹ 6,50,000/-on account of unexplained cash credit, even though the assessee has submitted all necessary details called for by the Id.Authorities, moreover in some cases the statements of the creditors were also recorded, assessee has fulfilled all the criteria mentioned under section 68 of the Income Tax act. The Ld.Authorites below have erred in km and facts by adding sum of ₹ 50.716/- on account of interest paid to unsecured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Date of issue cheque Amount of issue (Rs.) 1. Dineshkumar L Patel 25/2/2012 1,00,000/- 27/2/2012 1,00,000/- 2. Mahendra P. Shah 24/2/2012 1,00,000/- 25/2/2012 1,00,000/- 3. Bhavarlal L Patel 9/2/2012 1,00,000/- 10/2/2012 1,00,000/- 4. Niranjan Jian 9/2/2012 1,00,000/- 10/2/2012 1,00,000/- 5. Ganeshlal Lumbram Patel 9/2/2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vance such loan to the assessee. In case of Ganesh Lumbaram Patel i. He has not filed return of income for the year under consideration and had a small bank balance of ₹ 863.00 before the issue of cheque to the assessee. As such he had no creditworthiness as well as he was not the man of means to advance such loan to the assessee. In case of Lumbaram Patel i. He has filed return of income for the year under consideration showing total income of ₹ 1,79,300/- and had a small bank balance of ₹ 1,966/- before the issue of cheque to the assessee. As such he had no creditworthiness as well as he was not the man of means to advance such loan to the assessee. 3.3 In view of the above the AO was of the view that none of the party, who advanced loan to the assessee was the man of means. Therefore, he held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the parties and accordingly made the addition of the amount received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit of ₹ 6.50 lakh to the total income of the assessee. 3.4 Besides the above, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elaborated in the preceding paragraph and therefore we are not inclined to repeat the same. 6.1 Regarding the loan taken from Shri Niranjan Jain, we note that the assessee has submitted before the learned CIT (A) that he had not taken any loan from such party. However, the learned CIT (A) has held that the assessee has not furnished complete financial statements, therefore he confirmed the addition made by the AO. In this regard, we note that that the assessee has discharged his onus by furnishing the basic details of the parties. Therefore in our considered view the learned CIT (A) before disbelieving the contention of the assessee should have cross verified the fact from the concern party. But he has not done so. Therefore we are of the view that there cannot be any addition on account of loan taken from such party namely Shri Niranjan Jain. 6.2 Now coming to the loan taken from the other parties, the provision of section 68 of the Act fastens the liability on the assessee to provide the identity of the lenders, establish the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. These liabilities on the assessee were imposed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the books of account and reflected in the financial statements of the assessee since the subscription was done through the banking channels as evidenced by bank statements which were examined by the Tribunal. With regard to the capacity of the subscribers the impugned order records a finding that 98 per cent of the shares is held by IDFC Private Equity Fund-II which is a Fund Manager of IDFC Ltd. Moreover, the contributions in IDFC Private Equity Fund-II are all by public sector undertakings. The Tribunal has examined the case of the revenue on the parameters of section 68 and found on facts that it is not so hit. Therefore, section 68 cannot be invoked. The revenue has not been able to show in any manner the factual finding recorded by Tribunal is perverse in any manner. 6.5 Now coming to the 3rd condition, i.e. creditworthiness of the parties, we also note that the assessee has furnished the source of the income in the hands of the following parties: S. No. Name of persons Return Income 1 Dinesh Kumar L P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
