Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 98 - ITAT DELHIAddition u/s 68 - unsecured loans - Onus to prove - addition made as assessee failed to discharge the onus in proving the credit as genuine - HELD THAT:- The assessee has furnished confirmation, copy of Income tax returns of the lender, copy of bank statements of the lender to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. Assessee also produced the financials of the company in which the lender was one of the Directors holding 98.4% of the shareholding. According to which the company made substantial profits and had sufficient funds to advance amounts to the Director. Therefore, the assessee has proved the source of source also in this case although not required to prove in law. We hold that the assessee has proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor and therefore, the AO is erred in treating the loan of Rs. 80 lakhs received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Thus, reversing the findings of the CIT(A), we direct the AO to delete the addition made u/s 68. Addition u/s 2(22)(e) - Assessee is a Director and shareholder of company granting loan, thus holding more than 10% of voting rights of the company - CIT(A) sustained the addition - HELD THAT:- Counsel before us reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) submitted that the company has provided loan for purchase of agricultural land to the assessee as the assessee has experience and expertise in arranging the land to the company. Ld. Counsel submits that the loan was given to the assessee for the purpose of business. However, the assessee could not produce any substantial evidence to prove its contentions. Therefore, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) in sustaining the addition. This ground of appeal is rejected. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
|