Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1525 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s.68 on account of loan availed - HELD THAT:- The burden cast on assessee would shift to assessee only when assessee proved the identity of the creditors. Then only the AO could probe the matter further and investigate the material available before him to come to an independent conclusion before rejecting the explanation offered by the assessee. In the present case, the assessee has not proved all the above ingredients stated above and the assessee being failed to discharge primarily burden cast upon it, the assessee cannot say “catch me if you can”. The only contention of the assessee is that the amount was borrowed by cheque and paid by cheque. Repayment was not by the assessee, but by the third party. By appreciating all the material on record, the AO came to the conclusion that the assessee’s explanation regarding this cash credit could not be accepted in the case of M/s. AR.Com. We are not in a position to disturb the findings of the lower authorities in respect of credit in the name of M/s. AR.Com. Accordingly, the addition of 3.05 crores in the name of M/s. AR.Com to be considered as unexplained credit in the hands of the assessee, the addition sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) is justified. Hence, this ground raised by the assessee stands rejected. Coming to the credit in the name of M/s. MSG Associates for 50 lakhs and of Mr. Bharat Chandan for 25 lakhs, it was stated by the AO in his Remand Report that the identity of these two parties are proved by filing confirmation letters. The contention of the ld.D.R is that the assessee has not repaid the loan, but repayment by the third party - when the AO himself given in the remand report that assessee had produced the confirmation letters and credit worthiness of these parties, were also proved through bank accounts, it is not appropriate on the part of the Departmental Representative to argue contrary to the Remand Report submitted by the AO before the Ld.CIT(A) which is produced by the Ld.CIT(A) of his order. Being so, we are not in a position to interfere with the above findings of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting these two additions. Accordingly, deletion is justified and confirmed the order of Ld.CIT(A) on this issue.
|