Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 368 - HC - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - ingenuity of transaction - Held that:- Assessee is a private limited company and it being further admitted to it that the alleged investors were close friends and business associates of its directors and/or share holders, as the case may be, the burden rested squarely on the assessee to disclose true and correct details of the persons it claimed had made the substantial investments of ₹ 3.46 crores. That burden was not discharged. The identity of the alleged investors was never established and the assessee did not discharge its burden to lead evidence on that issue. The finding of the Tribunal is a finding of fact recorded on the basis of evidence and application of the correct principle/rule of evidence. The same calls for no interference by this Court and it is hereby sustained. Once, the identity of the investors was not established the assessee could not in any case claim to establish either the genuineness of the transaction or the creditworthiness of those persons. Therefore, the objection raised by learned counsel for the assessee as to lack of opportunity to cross-examine the Bank Manager or other witnesses, is largely inconsequential. Even if such opportunity has been granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer, it would have led to no different result inasmuch as since the assessee failed to establish the identity of the investors, the genuineness of the transaction itself gets disapproved for the reason that for a genuine transaction there must first exist genuine person to perform that transaction. Also, for that reason, the creditworthiness of the investors could never be established once it was found that there was no person existing who may have entered into such a transaction. - Decided against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
|