TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial year 2004-05. In this view of the matter we are of the considered opinion that addition u/s 68 is not justified - decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1137/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2019 - Sh. R.K Panda, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. K. R. Manjani, Advocate For the Respondent : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.11.2017 of the CIT(A)-12, New Delhi relating to A. Y. 2003-04. 2. The only effective ground raised by the assesee reads as under :- Learned CIT Appeal has erred on fact as well as law in sustaining the addition of ₹ 7,50,000/- even though the appellant produced own bank account, cheques issued by creditors, their confirmations which proved that they were regular assesses both the creditors having died and shifted to new addresses which were also supplied. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and the original assessment was completed u/s 153A on 28.12.2007 at an income of ₹ 8,72,120/- against the returned income of ₹ 1,22,120/- wherein addition of ₹ 7,50,000/- was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dded the amount of ₹ 7,50,000/- to the total income of the assesee. 3.2 Before CIT(A) it was submitted that assessee had substantiated the identity and credit worthiness of the loan creditors and the genuiness of the transactions by filing the following documents :- i) Affidavit of the Appellant explaining that these parties are engaged in money lending business. ii) Confirmations from Km. Prem Lata. iii) Her copy of account of Financial Year 2001-02 with M/s. R. L. Traders, to whom loan was given by her and returned to her in February, 2002. This she gave to Shri Rajesh Bhatia i.e. Appellant on 27.04.2002. iv) Copy of cheque issued by Km. Prem Lata, bank slip showing the deposit of this cheque in Shri Rajesh Bhatia s account. v) Confirmation of M/s. Shyam Gopal Sons, whose position is explained in the Affidavit of the Appellant. vi) Copy of bank account of Shri Rajesh Bhatia, showing receipt of both loans. vii) Similarly copy of account of Shri Rajesh Bhatia showing the return of loan to Km. Prem Lata. 4. It was further submitted that Sh. Shyam Gopal had died and his legal heirs had sold the property vide copy of the sale deed dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to produce the show called lenders before the Assessing Officer. Mere transactions through the banking channel and filing of return by the said lenders do not prove the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. I find support from the following decisions : 1. CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd., 208 ITR 465 (Cal) 2. Mange Lai Jain vs. ITO, 315 ITR 105 (Mad) 7.8 In the above cases, the Courts have held that mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of section 68. 7.9 Similarly, in the following cases, the Apex Court has held that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an Assessee is on him. 1. Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT, 107 ITR 938 (SC) 2. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC) 7.10 The peculiar facts of this case are different from the case of Sh. Sunil Kumar Bhatia for AY 2003-04. The Assessing Officer has diligently conducted the inquiry to verify the facts of the case and to look beyond the apparent. I do not agree with the contention of the Appellant that the parties could not be produced as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess of the loan creditors and genuiness of the transaction. The assessee in the instant case has miserably failed to discharge the onus cast on him. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) should be upheld. 9. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. I find the Assessing Officer in the instant case has made addition of ₹ 7,50,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act on the ground that the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast on him regarding the loan of ₹ 2,50,000/- obtained from M/s. Shyam Gopal Sons (HUF) and ₹ 5 lacs obtained from Mrs. Prem Lata. I find the ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assesee that the assessee had discharged the onus cast on him by proving the identity and credit worthiness of the loan creditors and genuiness of the transactions and therefore, no addition u/s 68 of the IT is called for. It is also his argument that both the lenders have expired an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
