9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see who has taken a loan is bound to produce the source of source. A bench of this court by an order dated 20.10.2010 had admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in reversing the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) an addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act on the facts and circumstance of the case? (ii) Whether the tribunal was justified in law in holding that the appellant has not proved the credit inspite of detailed evidences placed before the Tribunal on the facts and circumstance of the case? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in expecting in expecting the appellant to prove the source of source and origin of ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deletion of a sum of Rs. 55 Lakhs. The appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Being aggrieved, the assessee as well as the revenue filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by an order dated 05.03.2010, allowed the appeal preferred by the revenue and dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee and maintained the order passed by the Assessing Officer. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the Assessing Officer grossly erred in making addition on the ground that on perusal of the balance sheet, prima facie it appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C), 'LABHCHAND BOHRA VS. ITO', 219 CTR 571 (RAJ), 'KANHAILAL JANGID VS. ACIT', 217 CTR 354 (RAJ) AND 'CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION', 159 ITR 78 (SC). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that in order to avoid the rigor of Section 68 of the Act, the assessee is required to prove the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and credit worthiness of the creditor, which has not been done in the instant case. It is further submitted that neither the original agreement with regard to sale of the property nor the deed of cancellation of sale has been produced. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly made an addition of Rs. 55 Lakhs in the income of the assessee. It is also submitted that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garding source of fund lent by him, would not be decisive. It has further been held that explanation regarding source of money furnished by the lender whose money is lying deposited, has been found to be false. It would be a remote and far fetched conclusion to hold that money belongs to the assessee. The Supreme Court in case of ORISSA COPROATION P. LTD. supra has held that in case the assessee gives the names and addresses of the creditors, the revenue has to conduct an enquiry and examine the source of income of the alleged creditors to find out whether they were creditworthy or were such who could advance the alleged loans. 7. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal principles, the facts of the case may be seen. In the instant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
