Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 905 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of cash credit under section 68 - Held that:- We find that assessee has not produced any document which could rebut the findings of the Tribunal in order dated 14/05/2010. The assessee has not produced any receipt of advance payments by the proposed buyers. It is seen from the page 31 of the paper book that the cash was deposited in the bank accounts from 03/09/2004 to 23/03/2005, i.e., for a period of almost sevenmonth. The assessee has not been able to explain before us why it did not deposit entire amount in bank accounts immediately after receipt from the proposed buyers. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the genuineness of the transaction is doubtful and the assessee has failed to discharge its onus with regard to the genuineness of the transaction. Further from the Income-tax return of Sh. Anuj Garg, who was the proposed buyer (Page 8 of the assessee’s paper book), it is seen that his total income in assessment year 2004-05 was only ₹ 1,48,185/-. Similarly, total income of Rajendra Kumar Garg (Page 10 of the assessee paper book ) was only ₹ 1,54,000/-. Further the total income of another proposed buyer Sh. Gaurav Gupta (page 11 of the assessee paper book) was merely ₹ 69,616/-. No evidence in support of income of Sh. Dinesh Gupta is filed in the paper book submitted by the assessee. No other documents evidencing the financial capacity of the proposed buyer to advance the money were submitted. Looking to the amounts of total income of the proposed buyers, the creditworthiness of the creditors is also not getting established. Thus the assessee has failed to discharge its onus in respect of the genuineness of the transaction as well as creditworthiness of the creditors and, therefore, in our opinion the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act for the peak amounts of deposits in bank accounts, accordingly we set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) and restore the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. - Decided against assessee
|