TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the question No. 1 pertains to an issue which the Tribunal has ordered the Assessing Officer for re-computation. We are, therefore, not inclined to consider such a question. Remaining questions barring question No. 3 involve amounts which are extremely small. We have, therefore, focused our inquiry only on the question No.3, which reads as under : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in confirming the action of lower authorities of making addition of ₹ 2,60,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. The issue arises in following factual background. The appellant - assessee had shown several unsecured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om him. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal on similar grounds whereupon, the assessee approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order, confirmed the additions making following observations : 13. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. Indisputably, the assessee did nothing except filing confirmations of the aforesaid two creditors before the AO. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that mere filing of a confirmation letter could not be treated as sufficient evidence of the genuineness of the cash credits, since any one could sign a confirmation letter and provide a PAN. Thus, the assessee failed to discharge the initial burden which lay on him. The enqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tors, the capacity of his creditors to advance money and the genuineness of the transactions in order to discharge the onus imposed on him under section 68 of the Act. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Oceanic Products Exporting Co. v. CIT [2000] 241 ITR 497. A Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Prem Nath Goel and Co. v. CIT [2004] 271 ITR 390; [2004] 25 Indian Taxation Reports 124, has taken a view that for cash credit under section 68 of the Act, the onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the credit entries by providing (i) the identity of the creditor; (ii) capacity of the creditor to advance the money, and (iii) genuineness of the transaction, i.e. the circumstances and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt of amount through banking channel is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a genuine credit. In the light of view taken in the aforesaid decisions, especially when not a whisper has been made before us regarding creditworthiness of the aforesaid two creditors and genuineness of the transactions nor any such material has been placed before the lower authorities and even before us, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Consequently addition of ₹ 2,60,000/- in terms of the provisions of section 68 of the Act the interest of ₹ 12,825/- claimed on such cash credits is upheld. Thus, ground Nos.3 4 in the appeal are dismissed. 4. Learned counsel Shri Soparkar for the appellants veheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Rohini Builders (supra), this Court only confirmed the decision of the Tribunal by a short order holding that in view of the observations in paragraphs 7, 8 and 8.1, there was no substance in the appeal. If we peruse the decision of the Tribunal more minutely, we notice that in the said case, the assessee had produced substantial evidence before the Assessing Officer to establish all the three elements which would take the case of the assessee out of section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal recorded that the assessee had in many cases furnished copies of returns filed by the creditors with the Department along with their statement of income. All the loans were received by the assessee by account payee cheques and the repayments of loans h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
