TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1463 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ], and CIT vs. Ranchhod V. Nakhava [ 2012 (5) TMI 186 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] held that if the transaction is through regular banking channels and the assessee has filed confirmation along with PAN of the creditors, the assessee has discharged its onus. Thus we find that the assessee furnished all such details of the lenders/ depositors. There is no evidence that credit/ advance in the books of assessee was result of some circular transactions or any cash was deposited before issuing cheques to the assessee. In case of Chunilal Jivanram, the assessee has square up the loan during the present financial year. Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion, we do not find justification in making addition under section 68 of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.236/SRT/2022 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2023 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.A For the Revenue : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Nationa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corded that despite giving repeated opportunities, the AR of the assessee expressed his inability to produce the such details. The Assessing Officer recorded that assessee failed to explain its unsecured loan of Rs.30.00 lakh received from lenders and further explained other unsecured loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs squared up during the year from Chunilal Jivanram. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.35 lakhs as well as interest of Rs. 2,35,500/- paid by assessee to all four parties. The Assessing Officer taxed such addition under section115BBE. 4. Aggrieved by the addition in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The case of assessee migrated to NFAC/Ld. CIT(A). Before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed written submission. The submissions of the assessee is recorded in para-4 of the NFAC/Ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that Assessing Officer made addition of unsecured loan of Rs.35.00 lakhs and disallowed interest paid of Rs.2,78,500/-. The assessee submitted that it explained the details by filing reply on 09.10.2017, 18.12.2017 and again on 21.12.2017 before the Assessing Officer. The assessee submitted that Assessing Officer has not cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended that they have discharged onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of such transaction. To support, the assessee submitted case law of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Rohini Builders (2003) 127 Taxman 523(Guj)/[2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 182 CTR 373 (Guj) [19-03-2001] and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. (1986) 52 CTR 0138/(1986) 159 ITR 0078 SC. 5. The NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee confirmed the addition of Rs.35.00 lakh under section 68 of the Act by holding that as per the decision of superior courts, the assessee has to prove the identity of creditors and genuineness of such transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors. The, onus lies upon the assessee to prove that the amount credited in the account did not represent income as has been held by the various courts. The transaction made through banking channel is not conclusive evidence about the genuineness as held by Hon ble Calcutta High Court in Precision Finance P Limited (208 ITR 465) unless the creditworthy of the landers and genuineness of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that assessee submitted the copy of bank account was not furnished by assessee despite repeated direction of Assessing Officer. 8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We also deliberated various case law relied by Ld. AR for the assessee. We find that the assessing officer made addition of Rs. 35.00 lakhs by taking view that the assessee failed to provide the complete details of the lenders to prove the identity, creditworthy and genuineness of transaction. We find that before ld CIT(A) the assessee specifically contended that they have filed complete details of lenders to prove their identity, creditworthy and genuineness of transaction, except return of income and the copy of their bank pass book. The assessee also specifically stated before ld CIT(A) that they appeared before Assessing Officer on 22.12.2017 with return of income of lenders, computation of their income, financial statement and copy of their pass book, but the assessing officer not entertained such evidences. The ld CIT(A) also confirmed the addition of loan and consequential interest of payment of by taking view tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
