2023 (3) TMI 610 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - As per AO assessee failed to provide the complete details of the lenders to prove the identity, creditworthy and genuineness of transaction - AO taxed such addition under section 115BBE - HELD THAT:- We find that not only before assessing officer but before ld CIT(A) as well the assessee filed complete details of the lenders, consisting their name, PAN, which is otherwise reflected on their Form-16 alongwith addresses, contra confirmation, their bank pass books, return of income with capital accounts. No investigation against such evidences was carried out either by assessing officer or by ld CIT(A). No contrary evidences are brought on record to discard such evidences filed by the assessee. We find that in absence of any comment of the evidences furnished by the assessee in discharging its primary onus, assessing officer was not justified in making such additions.

We find that in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1986 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] and M/s Pankaj Enka Pvt limited [2016 (1) TMI 1463 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], and CIT vs. Ranchhod V. Nakhava [2012 (5) TMI 186 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that if the transaction is through regular banking channels and the assessee has filed confirmation along with PAN of the creditors, the assessee has discharged its onus.

Thus we find that the assessee furnished all such details of the lenders/ depositors. There is no evidence that credit/ advance in the books of assessee was result of some circular transactions or any cash was deposited before issuing cheques to the assessee. In case of Chunilal Jivanram, the assessee has square up the loan during the present financial year. Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion, we do not find justification in making addition under section 68 of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.