TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Alam also, though the identity of the creditor is established, proof of source of income and the genuineness of the transaction is wanting. We find no reason to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal and we find no questions of law arising from the order. The factual aspects have been dealt with elaborately and concurrently by the AO, the first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. There is no perversity on the analysis of evidence produced and the same is also not in contravention of the binding precedents. In fact, the binding precedents support the order of the Tribunal affirming those of the lower authorities. - HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY Appearance : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vity, the Act ) and the assessee was directed to furnish the details of the unsecured loans reflected in the balance sheet of the relevant assessment year. The assessee by communication dated 08.10.2007 took up a new contention that the partnership firm has introduced unsecured loans from two new persons, namely Smt. Rachna Bahri and Shri Syed Alam. The copy of the ledger account of two lenders and incomplete list of the parties as appearing in the balance sheet along with addresses were enclosed. With respect to the two loans of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- appearing in the name of Ms. Gunmala Devi and Mr. A.P.N. Singh, a notice under Section 133(6) of the Act, dated 10.10.2006 was issued to all the parties appearing in the balance s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 ITR 150 (Pat); of the Gujarat High Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj); of the Gauhati High Court in Nemichand Kothari v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati); of the Jharkhand High Court in Prayag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2018) 400 ITR 120 (Jhar) as also the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chunni Lal, (1995) 211 ITR 11 (ST) SC. 6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue Smt. Archana Shahi opposed the appeal and placed before us the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and (iii) genuineness of the transactions. Hence, merely by providing the identity of the investors, the onus of the assessee to prove the loan is not discharged. The capacity of the creditor to make the loan, i.e: his credit-worthiness, has to be proved along with the genuineness of the transaction. We also think it appropriate to extract hereunder the relevant portion of the decision in CIT v. P. Mohankala, (2007) 291 ITR 278: (2007) 6 SCC 21 , which has been extracted in the cited decision :- A bare reading of Section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, suggests that (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee; (ii) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year; and (iii) eithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee furnished a copy of the creditor s return of income and balance sheet for the assessment year 2005-06; which was contrary to that obtained from the Assessing Officer of the said creditor. The balance sheet for the relevant year of the creditor, procured from her Assessing Officer did not reflect the loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The assessee was asked to proffer explanation as to the source of the credit entry, in response to which a cash flow statement was filed by the alleged representatives of the creditor, but without any vakalatnama or authorisation. The cash flow statement filed without due authorization and the confirmation regarding genuineness of transaction was found to be lacking in credibility. But for the production of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the loan granted to the assessee. A document submitted from the Standard Chartered Bank enclosing copies of deposit slips of Rs. 3,00,000/- to Mr. A. P. N. Singh was found to be not relatable to the loan. In the present case also, the creditor s bank statement was produced which disclosed a credit of the very same amount just prior to the alleged loan. The source of such credit was not proved before the authority. Hence, though the identity of the creditor was proved, neither was the creditworthiness of the creditor nor the genuineness of the transaction established. 12. Mr. Syed Aijaz Alam was said to have given a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the assessee-firm. The creditor appeared and also contended that the source of the income was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
