TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT(A) also held that the share application money received by the assessee is not be added u/s. 68 of the act having regards to the facts of the case wherein the same was doubted as an accommodation entry from the group of Pravin Kumar. From entity of facts and circumstances as narrated above, we find that A.O the AO has merely relied on the interim order of SE'BI in the case of M/s. Pyramid Satsmira instead of gathering any evidences to show that the unaccounted cash of the assessee has changed consequently, resulting in the cheque payment. The interim order of the SEBI has be reversed vide the final order dated 31.03.2015. CIT(A) also taken into consideration all the facts as narrated above. No new facts or contrary judgment/m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was complied with by the assessee by filing return of income on 10.10.2015 declaring the same income as was declared in the original return of income. Thereafter, the statutory notices were issued and duly served upon the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in shares and equities. In this case, the case was reopened after AO received information from DGIT (Inv.)(2), Mumbai that assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entries from various group companies belonging to Shri Praveen Kumar Jain who is a hawala operator. The said fact came to light after a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act on Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and his associate concerns by the investigation wing. The details of loans tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he running accounts and duly accounted in the books of accounts of the assessee as well as the investors as is evident from the financial statements filed. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that all the lenders have confirmed the transactions and thus held the loan transactions by all companies as genuine and thus directed the AO to delete the addition. 5. The Ld. A.R., at the outset, submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA No.1778/M/2018 A.Y. 2007-08 wherein identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by holding that the assessee has filed all the necessary documents thereby satisfying the three ingredients namely identity, creditworthiness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee directing the AO to delete the said addition. The ld AR submitted that loans taken from these parties were repaid during the year itself and nothing was outstanding at the year end. Moreover, in the earlier year under the same facts the issue was decided in favour of the assessee though agreed to the plea of the Ld. D.R. that there was a SEBI enquiry in the preceding assessment year whereas in the current year there is no such investigation. However, the Ld. A.R. predominantly maintained that the issue is identical on merits and may kindly be decided by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. 8. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record including the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in the order that lender is not creditworthy. The assessee can be discharged his onus by proving three things (i) identity of the creditor, ii) capacity of the creditor and (iii) the genuineness of the transaction. Once the assessee has proved all these three things, then onus of the assessee stands discharged. The assessee only needs to prove the source of an entry and he need not to prove the source of the source. A perusal of all the documents submitted by the assessee reveals that the assessee has discharged its onus of establishing genuineness of the transaction. The A.O has not observed or noted any faults or discrepancies in the documents submitted. We have also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (230 entities). The details of said order SEBI dt. 31-03-2015 is contained in pages 13-14 in the CIT(A)'s order, and the same has also already been extracted hereinabove in earlier paras of this order. On perusal of the said order of SEBI dt. 31-03-2015, it is clear 217 out of 230 entities were found to be incorrect in view of enquiry by RBI/FIU Unit. The assessee has also submitted 8 share applicants are part of above mentioned 217 entities mentioned in the impugned SEBI order listed at sr. no.4,61,70,92,96, 157,210 and 216. Thus, this order of SEBI proves that the matter regarding suspected banking transactions are not money laundering as alleged by the A.O in his order. Thus, basic reliance placed by the AO on SEBI order in itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
