9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case are that the Assessing Officer found the cash credit of Rs.10,36,000/- in the accounts of the assessee in the name of the following three persons :- (i) Mrs. Urmila Devi : Rs.2,82,700/- (ii) Shri Krishan Kumar : Rs.3,76,600/- (iii) Shri Inderjeet Rajpura : Rs.3,76,700/- Rs.10,36,000/- 4. The assessee had furnished the affidavit of the creditors and the creditors were also produced before the Assessing Officer but he was not satisfied with the creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. Accordingly, he made the addition of Rs.10,36,000/- for unexplained cash credit under Section 68 which was sustained by the learned CIT(A) as well as the ITAT. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom that source. The nexus between the source and the cash credit is to be established." That once there is a source of income in the hands of the creditors, the assessee has duly discharged the onus which lay upon him. There is no requirement that there should be nexus between the source and the cash credit. However, at present, it is only the penalty appeal and, for the purpose of penalty, the assessee has duly furnished the explanation of the cash credit by submitting the affidavits of the creditors and producing the creditors before the Assessing Officer. Such explanation has not been found to be false. Merely because the Assessing Officer and the appellate authorities were not satisfied about the creditworthiness of the creditors, it c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vit of the creditors. The creditors were also produced before the Assessing Officer. They have admitted to have advanced the money to the assessee. They have also produced evidence with regard to the source of income in their hands. Merely because the Assessing Officer or appellate authorities were not satisfied with the source of income, it cannot be said that the assessee either furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed the income. On these facts, the assessee's case does not fall within the mischief of Explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c) because the assessee offered an explanation with regard to cash credit which was not found to be false by the Assessing Officer or the learned CIT(A) and the assessee also substantiated the explanat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
