Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 664 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit u/s. 68 - loan received by assessee from a group company ABPL - search and seizure action was conducted in the case of the assessee under s.132 - AO completed the assessment under s.153A - HELD THAT:- The aspersions have been cast on the source of source of lender which would mean source of source of source of lending in the hands of assessee is the basis for invoking Section 68 - The genuineness of loan received has been doubted by Revenue on such ground. The action of Revenue seeking to cast aspersions on genuineness on such remote and unsupported basis is in the realm of conjectures and surmises as canvassed on behalf of assessee. There is nothing on record to show any outcome of enquiry, if any, from the lender of lender for source of his money. Genuineness of the transaction has to be read in the context of all attendant facts cumulatively and cannot be seen in isolation. The burden on the assessee under s.68 of the Act is limited to proving the nature and source of the credit entry. The burden does not extent to establish the quality of source of money in the hands of source of source per se. In the instant case, the lender as well as the lender of the lender are both limited company and are tax assessee in the record of department. In absence of any evidence against the assessee qua the lender of the lender, the onus on the assessee to establish genuineness and creditworthiness of lender, in our view, stands discharged. We see no error in the process of reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) while concluding the issue in favour of the assessee Unexplained investment as capital of the assessee - HELD THAT:- Additions towards presumptive cash contribution amounting to ₹ 32,88,000/- in proportion to the partnership share appears prima facie inexplicable. The onus is on the Revenue to bring some cogent evidences on record to establish that alleged unaccounted cash contribution has been actually made by the assessee partner indeed. Unaccounted expenses for construction project carried out by the partnership firm has been attributed to the partner in proportion to the partner share as a figment of imagination without any legally sustainable basis. The impugned action of AO is apparently driven by misplaced suspicion and a mere ipse-dixit which is not objectively justifiable. It is well settled that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof. In our view, the CIT(A) has analyzed the facts in its natural perspective and has rightly reversed the action of AO. We do not see any perceptible merit in the appeal of the Revenue and thus decline to interfere.
|