TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. CIT(DR), the investor had returned income of ₹ 530/-. Therefore, it is necessary that what was the source of investment of the investor has to be clearly brought on record. Mere filing of return cannot establish the creditworthiness.Therefore, we restore this matter to the file of AO to provide one more opportunity to assessee to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of M/s Well Wish Credits Pvt. Ltd., as requested by ld. counsel for the assessee. Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. - ITA nos. 4426 /Del/2010, ITA nos. 4427 /Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 6-10-2015 - SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI I.C. SUDHIR : JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Sameer Sharma Sr. DR For The R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the A.O u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961, being the unexplained cash credits. 2.1 The Id CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the existence/credit worthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. The Id CIT(A) also ignored the findings recorded by the A.O that the assessee received the money in question from the entry operators. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, or amend any grounds of the appeal raised above at the time of the hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case are that in course of assessment proceedings the AO noticed that during previous year assessee had received share capital amounting to ₹ 62,50,000/- out of which ₹ 15,00,000/- was sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish its latest address. Genuineness and creditworthiness of the said Share capital Subscriber have not been established by the assessee. In view of these facts, the amount of ₹ 15,00,000/- received from the above company has to be treated as Unexplained Cash Credits in the hands of the assessee company. 4.1. He also relied on the legal position, which has been noted in para 5 of his order. 5. Before ld. Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had given detailed submissions which have been reproduced at pages 2 to 5 of his order. The assessee had also relied on following case laws: - CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195; - CIT vs. Divine Leasing Finance Ltd. (2007) 299 ITR 268 (Del.); - CIT vs. Value Capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish Credits Pvt. Ltd. is contained and pointed out that the total income returned by the company was only ₹ 530/-. He, therefore, submitted that the investment of ₹ 15,00,000/- by the said company was wholly inconceivable. Ld. DR further submitted that mere disclosure of identity is not sufficient and the genuineness of the transaction is to be viewed having regard to the creditworthiness of the lender. 7. Ld. counsel submitted that the income cannot be the criteria for deciding the creditworthiness of the party and, therefore, matter may be restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record of the case. We find considerable force in the submission of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. 11. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, inter alia, following the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195. Being aggrieved, the department is in appeal before us and has taken following grounds of appeal. 1. The order of the learned CIT(Appeals) is erroneous contrary to facts law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 8,00,000/-made by the A.O u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961, being the unexplained cash credits. 2.1 The Id CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the existence/credit worthiness of the creditors and genuineness o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
