Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2007 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (10) TMI 433 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Unsecured loans received from depositors - Genuineness of the transaction - Onus of Proof - HELD THAT:- The payment has been made by the assessee to each of the party through account payee Cheque and the same has duly been confirmed by each of the party. The assessee has filed the copy of the Bank Account, which clearly denotes that none of the party has deposited cash in their respective bank account. There is no evidence on record, which may prove that the assessee has ever given cash or received back the cash relating to this transaction. In our opinion the assessee had duly discharged his burden of proof, which a person of ordinary prudence could have discharged. The Assessing Officer even did not ask for the production of these parties. The assessee had its own requested the Assessing Officer to issue summons u/s 131 but the Assessing Officer has not done anything further. Once the assessee has discharged his burden, the onus got shifted on the Assessing Officer to prove that the evidence filed by the assessee are not correct. No cogent material or evidence has been brought on record, which may prove that the Assessing Officer had discharged his burden in this regard. Since we have already held in the preceding paragraph that the assessee had duly discharged his onus of the creditors were the income- tax assessee’s. The permanent account numbers were in the file of the revenue. Payments were received by the assessee through account payee cheque and refunded through account payee cheque. The assessee requested for the issuance of notice u/s 131 but the Assessing Officer did not pursue the matter further by issuing notice u/s 131. Therefore in our opinion in the present case the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd.[1986 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] is clearly applicable. Thus, we delete the addition. Thus, ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the assessee’s appear are allowed. We, directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the interest u/s 234A and 234B in accordance with law after giving effect to our order in the preceding paragraph. Thus both the ground Nos. 5 and 6 are allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
|