Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 107 - ITAT MUMBAIAddition made u/s 68 - not production of conclusive evidence - Held that:- The assessee could not adduce any conclusive evidence in support of its contention that the impugned transaction is akin to the security scam transaction. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has repeatedly said that the Revenue Authorities has failed to discharge the burden of proof. As mentioned elsewhere section 106 clearly lay down that the burden of proving fact specially within the knowledge of any person is upon that person. Even today in the year 2014, no such conclusive confirmation has been brought before us either from Andhra Bank or from the broker M/s Champaklal Devidas. After carefully perusing the order and the evidences brought on record, we have to hold that the assessee has miserably failed in discharging the burden of proof cast upon it by virtue of section 68 r.w.s. 106 of the Evidence Act. The explanations of the assessee are full of discrepancies and contradictions and above all unsubstantiated. Considering the facts in totality, the decision of the first appellate authority cannot be faulted with. - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of finance charges payable - Held that:- There is a mention of sale of units of ₹ 132,275,000/- from which is deducted purchase of units amounting to ₹ 134,942,875/-. The difference is claimed as finance charges. A perusal of these transactions clearly show that there was a loss on purchase and sale of units. By any stretch of imagination, this cannot be considered as equivalent to finance charges. Interest is paid whenever money is borrowed or some debt is incurred. Both elements are missing in these transactions. Therefore, the finance charges claimed by the assessee is rightly denied by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).- Decided against assessee.
|