9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the Assessee filed her return of income showing income of Rs. 21,23,470/-. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. About the end of the assessment proceedings, the AO vide order sheet entry dated 6.12.2010 asked the assessee for first time to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness in respect of the unsecured loans of Rs. 38,50,000/- taken from three persons during the relevant assessment year. Thereafter, the AO vide order sheet entry dated 16.12.2010 called same details again. However, the Assessee failed to ensure compliance and AO taxed the credit aggregating to Rs. 38,50,000/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act vide his order dated 29.12.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by assessing the income of the assessee at Rs. 59,73,470/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 11.3.2014 deleted the additions by allowing the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. 5. On the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry evidences as it would amount to a punitive measure. The appellate authority may well undertake to make good such omission. Here in the present case, the appellant has reasonable cause also for admission of additional evidence as evident from the fact that the issue of cash credits was first time raised on 06.12.2010 just before the completion of the assessment (23 days; time period between the order sheet entry dated 06.12.2010 through which the above mentioned details were called and the conclusion of the assessment proceedings vide impugned order.) and that too when the requisite details were required to be called from third persons. Thus, it appears that the appellant has reasonable cause in ensuring compliance. Therefore, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for admission of additional evidence. Hence, all the documents submitted by the appellant are admitted herewith for deciding this appeal on merit and in the interest of justice. Reliance is placed on following case laws: Shahrukh Khan vs DCIT 13 SOT 61(Mum) ITO vs Dwarka Prasad 63 ITD l(TM)(Patna) Rachhpal Singh vs ITO 94 ITD 79 (Asr) Electra Jaipur (P) Ltd. vs Inspecting Asstt. CIT 26 ITD 236(De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng loan. Similar facts are in respect of Smt. Sujata Sachdeva. Her bank account is showing consistent credit and debits having substantial credit balance throughout year. 4.1 From the above, it is evident that the appellant has discharged her onus of proving identity, the source of loan and the genuineness of transactions in accordance with the provisions of section 68. It is a settled law that the assessee is not answerable to explain source of source of the fund. In light of the fact that there is no cash deposit in the bank accounts of the above mentioned three persons for advancing loan and their categorical admission confirming loan during the remand proceedings, I am of the considered view that the above mentioned loans aggregating to Rs. 38,50,000/- cannot be charged to tax in the appellant's hands u/s 68 particularly in absence of any contrary evidence brought on the record by the AO. My inference that the appellant is not required to explain source of source of the fund gets buttressed by the amendment made in section 68 with effect from 01.04.2013, which empowers the AO to examine source of source in case of share application money from 01.04.2013 and no other cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harya, 112 ITR 423 (Cal). We note that it is for this reason that though the rules require new evidence to be admitted only where there is reason for the assessee for not being able to present such evidence before the AO, it is considered not only fair but justified, where the appellate authority itself considers such evidence necessary. We further note that the Hon'ble Courts have held that where there is omission to submit part of documents as required by the AO, the Appellant Authority may not be justified merely by drawing an adverse inference against the assessee failing to furnish certain documentary evidences as it would amount to a punitive measure. The appellate authority may well undertake to make good such omission. Here in the present case, the assessee has reasonable cause also for admission of additional evidence as evident from the fact that the issue of cash credits was first time raised on 06.12.2010 just before the completion of the assessment (23 days; time period between the order sheet entry dated 06.12.2010 through which the above mentioned details were called and the conclusion of the assessment proceedings vide impugned order.) and that too when the requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their balance sheets as the same is not legally required. Definitely, the taxable income is not only the criteria to explain the credit worthiness of any person; though it is an indicator. We have perused all three bank accounts of the above mentioned persons and find that the loan of Rs. 22,OO,OOO/- has advanced by Shri Parkhi Sigh out of a credit in his bank account through cheque clearing of Rs. 23,41,500/- on 08.06.2007 and the loan has not been given to the appellant out of any cash deposit in his bank account. Similar facts are in respect of Shri Shailendra Kumar; wherein a credit of Rs. 10,01,128/- through cheque is appearing in his bank account on 05.10.2007 and the loan has been advanced thereafter. There is no cash deposit in his bank account before advancing loan. Similar facts are in respect of Smt. Sujata Sachdeva. Her bank account is showing consistent credit and debits having substantial credit balance throughout year. From the above, it is evident that the assessee has discharged her onus of proving identity, the source of loan and the genuineness of transactions in accordance with the provisions of section 68. It is a settled law that the assessee is not answerabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
