9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n received of Rs. 6,00,000/- treating it as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact that the identity of the lender and genuineness of transaction made through banking channel was established. The lender has given the statement before the Assessing Officer confirming to have given the loan from his own bank account and out of his own sources and produced all the relevant documents. As such the appellant has discharged his primary onus to prove the identity of the lender and genuineness of the loan." 3. In a nutshell the facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) requested the assessee to file loan confirmations of the parties who had advanced loan during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand report that Mr. Dattu was working in Vashi and Khadk, Mumbai as a labourer and earned Rs. 9,000/- p.m. A perusal of the bank statement shows that apart from the loan transactions, Mr. Dattu's bank balance rarely crossed Rs. 5,500/- and therefore, he was not having the capacity to give loan of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The learned CIT(A) observed that Mr. Dattu had received meagre interest of Rs. 18,000/- in cash even though the loan was advanced for more than one year. The learned CIT(A) further observed from the bank statement of the lender Mr. Dattu that there were two withdrawals of Rs. 3,00,000/- each on 08.05.2008. The assessee had not furnished the transactions prior to May, 2008 and, therefore, he had not proved the source of earning of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tural land for installation of a windmill. However he had not proof of receiving the funds from M/s. Suzlon Ltd. Mr. Dattu has stated before the AO that he was working in Vashi and Khadk, Mumbai as a labourer and was earning Rs. 9,000/- p.m. It is inconceivable that with such meagre income Mr. Dattu could give a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the assessee. 8. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC), the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether they stand in the assessee's account or in the account of a third party. At para 7 here-in-above, we have delineated that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction. 9. In the result, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
