TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 2016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PRASAD (JM) 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee for the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11 and 2012-13 to 2014-15 against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai [hereinafter in short Ld.CIT(A) ] dated 30 31.01.2018 in sustaining the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act. 2. As the issue is common in all these appeals i.e. addition made u/s. 68 of the Act from the various creditors, first we take up the appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09. Briefly stated the facts are that, based on the information received from the DGIT (Inv.) that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entries provided by various entities being operated by Praveen Kumar Jain Group [for short PKJ Group ], the assessments for the A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2010-11 and 2012-13 to 2013-14 were reopened and the assessment for the A.Y. 2014-15 was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. In the course of the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer required the assessee to prove the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the creditors. Assessee submitted that, assessee has taken loans from the creditors through account payee cheques and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffidavit of the Shri Praveen Kumar Jain retracting his statement earlier given in the course of the search before investigation authorities. Therefore, all these evidences prove that the loan transaction is genuine. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has established the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness and the primary onus cast on the assessee has been discharged. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that on identical facts the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shree Laxmi Estate Pvt ltd., v. ITO in ITA.No. 5954/Mum/2016 and M/s. Shree Laxmi Developers v. ITO in ITA.No. 2562/Mum/2017 dated 29.12.2017, held that, once the assessee has discharged his initial burden the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that no further enquiry has been made by the Assessing Officer except relying on the statements and the investigation report to prove that the loan transactions were non-genuine. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Shree Laxmi Developers v. JCIT in ITA.No. 6090/Mum/2017 dated 07.03.2018 and submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viding complete details regarding the said loan transactions. It was further submitted that the loan was received and repaid only through account payee cheques, confirmations filed, bank statements filed Profit and Loss Account and balance sheets of creditors filed, PAN details of creditors filed and therefore, the loans cannot be treated as non-genuine based only on the report of the DGIT (Inv.) without providing the statements relied on by the Assessing Officer and without providing any cross examination to the assessee. I notice in the case of the M/s. Shree Laxmi Estate Pvt ltd., v. ITO and M/s. Shree Laxmi Developers v. ITO (supra) identical issue came up before the Coordinate Bench and the Coordinate Bench considering the submissions as well as the materials placed before the lower authorities concluded that when once the assessee furnished all the details in respect of the loan transaction assessee has discharged its initial burden and the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove otherwise. It was also held that Assessing Officer made addition only on the basis of the information received from the investigation wing but not based on any evidence to disprove the loan t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below. The AO made addition towards unsecured loans received from Josh Trading Company Pvt Ltd and Viraj Mercantile Pvt Ltd on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing which revealed that the assessee is the beneficiary of bogus accommodation entries provided by Shri Praveenkumar Jain through his bogus companies. The AO has made additions u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that though the assessee has furnished necessary evidences to prove identity of the parties, but failed to establish genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of parties in the backdrop of clear findings of Investigation Wing that those companies are hawala companies involved in providing accommodation entries. The AO has brought out facts in the light of statement of Shri Pravinkumar Jain deposed before the Investigation Wing to make addition. Except this, there is no contrary evidence in the possession of the AO to disprove the loan transactions from Josh Trading Company Pvt Ltd and Viraj Mercantile Pvt Ltd. On the other hand, the assessee has furished various details including confirmation letters from the parties, their bank statements alongwith their financial statements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aj Mercantile Pvt Ltd are active in MCA website. We further notice that both the companies have filed financial statements for the year ending 31-03-2006. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee has discharged its initial burden cast u/s 68 by filing identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the parties. Once, the assessee has discharged its initial burden, the burden shifts to the AO to prove otherwise. In this case, the AO made addition only on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing, but not based on any evidence to disprove the loan transaction from above companies are ingenuine. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no reason for the AO to treat loans from above 2 companies as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. .. . 11. In this view of the matter and considering the ratio of the case laws discussed above, we are of the considered view that the assessee has discharged identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. Therefore, there is no reason for the AO to make addition towards loan u/s 68 of the Act. Hence, we direct the AO to delete addition made towards loans al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
