TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rety of the facts of the case, find that the explanation of the assessee which was a plausible explanation was rejected by the Assessing Officer merely on the basis of suspicion or doubt and without bringing on record any positive material even after examining all the 20 persons under section 131 of the Act. A plausible explanation offered by the assessee cannot be so rejected by the Assessing Officer without bringing even an iota of material on record and even pointing out any inconsistency in the statement of the creditors recorded u/s.131 of the Act. See Sreelekha Banerjee vs CIT (1963 (3) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT) wherein, held that the department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation convert good proof into no proof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iving cash advance of ₹ 1 lakh each to Smt. Jasobanti Sahoo. The Assessing Officer observed that none of the persons who had advanced money had any bank account, all of them were petty agriculturists without any PAN and meagre income source and the payment of all the advances were in cash. Therefore, he observed that the creditors had genuine identity on the basis of documents like copy of voter identity card, copy of land deed, etc submitted by them. However, the creditworthiness and genuineness of their alleged transaction could not be proved. The Assessing Officer observed that mere identity is not adequate in establishing the genuineness of transaction and their creditworthiness in giving the cash advance. He referred to the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... latives and deposited the amount in Bank so as to keep the advance ready for the builder. But unfortunately the negation with the builder did not materialise. She abandoned the idea of purchasing the flat at Bhubaneswar and refunded the money to the friends and relatives that she had received through three persons. The appellant then cited ratios of few cases mostly discussing that the evidence through affidavits cannot be rejected. 4. From the facts of the case it is evident that in the Axis Bank account of the assessee jointly with his wife there has been very few credit and debit entries during the year in small denomination. For example, the total transaction in the account was for ₹ 22,16,356/-, out of which ₹ 20,00,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cable to the case of the appellant. The AO also very correctly referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Karnataka, Supra, where it was held only the identity of the loan creditor is not enough evidence in accepting the cash credit. Thus in the absence of evidence of creditworthiness of the loan creditors and genuineness of transaction and the highly improbable manner in which the facts are presented, I am inclined to agree with the decision of the AO. The addition made by the AO is confirmed. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee is maintaining a saving bank account No.501010100010061 with Axis Bank, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income of the assessee by treating the source of aforesaid deposit of cash in the said Axis Bank as unexplained. 8. According to the Assessing Officer, though the assessee explained the identity of 20 creditors but could not substantiate the genuineness of the transaction as well as creditworthiness of the creditors to advance ₹ 1 lakh to the wife of the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, the creditors were not having PAN, the only source of income of the creditors were agricultural income and the creditors were having meager income. In this view of the matter, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the genuineness of the transactions as well as creditworthiness of the creditors. 9. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eness of transaction before the Assessing officer. 11. In the above circumstances, I fail to appreciate how the Assessing Officer can state that genuineness of the transaction was not proved. 12. Further, in respect of the capacity of the creditors, I find that each of the creditors has in support of their capacity produced evidence of ownership of agricultural land owned by them before the Assessing Officer. After examining those evidences, the Assessing Officer could not bring any positive material on record to show that from agricultural land possessed by the creditors, they could not have earned so much of agricultural income out of which ₹ 1 lakh could not be advanced by them. 13. The Assessing Officer has merely stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
