Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1666 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Addition u/s. 68 - assessee failure to prove genuineness of loan - disallowance of interest paid on above said loan - discharge of primary onus - addition relying on statement of accommodation entry providers - HELD THAT:- The assessee has furnished confirmation obtained from Rose Impex, which contained PAN and address of the creditor. The assessee has also furnished copies of return of income filed by the creditor. These documents prove the identity of creditor. The assessee has also furnished bank account of Rose Impex and also it’s own bank account in order to show that the loan transaction has been carried out through banking channel. Though, the learned CIT(A) has observed that there was huge transfer of fund before giving loan to the assessee, perusal of the bank account of Rose Impex would show that the funds have been transferred were through banking channels only and not by way of depositing cash. The assessee has also furnished bank statement to show that the above said loans have been repaid on 25.3.2013. Since transactions of taking loan and repayment of loan have taken place through banking channel, in our view, the genuineness of transaction also stands proved. Perusal of the balance sheet of Rose Impex would show that the loan of ₹ 25 lakhs given to the assessee is duly reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee. Further, it can be noticed that Rose Impex has taken loans from various persons, which formed source for giving loan to the assessee. Hence, it cannot be said the Rose Impex was not having funds for giving loan to the assessee, meaning thereby, creditworthiness of the creditor also stands proved. Merit in the contention that assessee has discharged primary onus placed upon it u/s. 68 - we have noticed that the assessee has discharged burden of proof placed upon its shoulders u/s. 68 of the Act, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition by simply placing reliance on the statement given by Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain - decided in favour of assessee
|