Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1540 - ITAT DELHIAddition u/s 68 - refund of advance against property - onus to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction - HELD THAT:- It is not a case where there was no entry in the books of accounts of the assessee and an arbitrary addition was made. There was very much a credit entry in the books of accounts of the appellant, for which the AO asked the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Thus, in terms of the provisions of the Act where the duty is cast upon the assessee to discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, the ground of the assessee that the AO failed to bring any evidence on record is totally baseless and against the principles of law. It is noted that the assessee has not furnished any confirmation, any document to suggest any such transaction. The assessee has also not submitted the details of the property for which the advance was given. Even if as per the submission of the assessee, the assessee returned the original receipt to Mr. Niraj Jain, the assessee must have kept a photocopy of the same for records, further the assessee must be aware of the property for which such advance was given, furthermore, there should have been some MOU and Agreement to Sale disclosing the total consideration of the property at that time and other terms and conditions. However, nothing was placed on record by the assessee and he has failed to furnish even a single document on record to substantiate its stand. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition - CIT(A) has rightly rejected the request of the assessee for cross examination of Sh. Niraj Jain. Therefore, no interference is required on my part in the well reasoned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue, hence, I uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the ground raised by the Assessee. Reopning of assessment u/s 147 - issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act after the period of four years without mentioning in the recorded reason that the escapement of chargeable income from tax was due to omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessarily for assessment - HELD THAT:- The said ground was not argued by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, hence, the same is dismissed as such. However, CIT(A) has rightly adjudicated the legal ground against the assessee of the impugned order which does not require any interference on my part. Addition as commission paid - HELD THAT:- Rate of commission has reasonably been estimated by the AO at the rate of 5% on the amount of accommodation entry and therefore, CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition in dispute, which does not need any interference on my part, hence, uphold the action of the CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Assessee.
|