Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 634 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - AO's stand that mere filing of documents by the lender, does not prove identity and creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transaction - HELD THAT:- It is settled position of law that to avoid the rigors of Section 68, the assessee must prove the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders / investors to advance such monies and genuineness of the transactions. Assessee has discharged the primary onus to demonstrate fulfilment of primary ingredients of Sec.68 and it was incumbent upon revenue to dislodge the assessee’s claim by bringing on record, cogent material to establish that the assessee’s unaccounted money was routed in its books of account in the garb of unsecured loans. However, we are unable to find any such material except for the fact that additions were made merely on suspicious, conjectures and surmises. Therefore, no infirmity could be found, in the impugned order, in this regard. We confirm the appellate order. Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - HELD THAT:- Original return was processed u/s 143(1) and the case was reopened within 4 years upon receipt of tangible information from investigation wing which suggested possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. In our opinion, nothing more was required at this stage since Ld. AO had sufficient reasons to form such a belief. Therefore, we do not find much substance in assessee’s cross-objections and see no reason to deviate from the findings of Ld.CIT(A), in the impugned order, in this regard. Resultantly, the cross-objections stands dismissed. Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. See case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited [2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI]
|