TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal has rendered a finding of fact which is not shown to be perverse. In any event, the question as proposed in law of the obligation to explain the source of the source prior to 1st April, 2013, Assessment Year 2013-14, stands concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Gangadeep Infrastructure (2017 (3) TMI 1263 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). - Income Tax Appeal No. 819 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA, SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. Mr. Arvind Pinto, Advocate for the appellant. None present for the respondent. P.C. :- 1. This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 21st January, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed giving of the loan through loan confirmations, personal appearance and also attempted to explain the source of its funds. It also records the fact that the sum of ₹ 64.25 lakhs had already been returned to LFPL through account payee cheques and the balance outstanding was ₹ 1 crore and 75 lakhs. Besides, it records that the source of source also stands explained by the fact that the director of the creditor had accepted his giving a loan to the respondent's lender. In face of the above fact, it is the Revenue's case that the source of source, the respondent is unable to explain. In law, the impugned order notes that, the subject assessment year is 2010-11. The requirement of explaining the source of the source of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve decision, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Lovely Exports (supra) in the context of the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act. In the above case, the Apex Court while dismissing the Revenue's Appeal from the Delhi High Court had observed that, where the Revenue urges that the money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Revenue to proceed against them in accordance with law. This would not entitle the Revenue to invoke Section 68 of the Act while assessing the respondent for not explaining the source of its source. In any event, the impugned order of the Tribunal has raised a finding of fact that the respondent had discharged the onus which is cast upon it in terms of the pre-amended Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
