9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit u/s 68 of the IT Act 1961 and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that assessee has discharged its onus u/s 68 of the Act by submitting the evidences proving the creditworthiness, identity and genuineness of the loan parties and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. 4. Without prejudice to above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition on the basis of statement of Vipul Vidur Bhatt without appreciating that Vipul Vidur Bhatt has retracted his statement and hence, addition u/s 68 of the Act may be deleted. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty initiated by the Ld. AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. 6. Your Appellant crave, leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice issued u/sec 133(6) of the Act. Whereas the AO is of the opinion that the genuineness of the transactions could not be established and the assessee has not discharged its obligation of proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan creditors. Whereas the assessee has filed the details vide letter dated 23.11.2017 and reply to the show cause notice issued by the A.O dated 8.12.2017. The assessee has submitted the details i.e confirmation of lenders, bank account statements and financial statements etc to substantiate genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. The assessee has repaid the unsecured loans obtained from four lenders in the subsequent years and was confirmed by the parties. But the AO was not satisfied with the information and explanations and observed that the assessee has not satisfied the ingredients required u/sec 68 of the Act and made an addition of Rs. 1,03,95,000/- and assessed the total income of Rs. 1,04,04,880/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 29.12.2017. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has considered grounds of appeal, findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, not being less than thirty days, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139.] (2)4 The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so.] We now discuss the provisions of said section alongwith our reply in support of validity of issue of notice as under: 1. "The expression "has reason to believe" used in section 147 is very significant and important. The belief formed by the AO must not be arbitrary or irrational. It must be based on reasons and cannot merely be on pretence. Circumstances in which belief is formed for escapement of income must actually exist and must not deem to exist. Reason to believe must be honest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief." In view of the above facts and legal position the notice issued by the AO is invalid and bad at law. "The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in the case of Bawa Abhay Vs. DCIT 253 ITR 83 that the crucial expression u/s 147 of the Act is "reason to belief" It contemplates existence of reasons on which the belief is founded not merely a belief in the existence of reasons inducing the belief. Such a belie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment order that there was any material which came to the notice of the department due to which the income chargeable to tax escaped assessment at the time of making assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, on account of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts by the assessee. The live link or close nexus, which should be there between the material and the belief which the AO was to form regarding the escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment because of assessee's failure or omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts is missing. Since the Ld AO has not brought on record any valid reason initiation of reassessment proceedings is not valid. Support is taken from the following judgments: Hon'ble Delhi High Court In following cases Sarthak Securities Co (P) Ltd v ITO 195 Taxmann, 262 V S Capital Services (P) Ltd V ITO Delhi ITAT 316 Taxpundit.com Pr CIT Vs G & G Pharma India Ltd Further Hon'ble ITAT Agra in the case of M/s Dheeraj Hospital (P) Ltd v/s ITO 3(5) Hathras ITA NO 41/Agra/2017 & M/s Charan Singh Ice and Cold Storage (P) Ltd v/s ITO 3(5) Hathras ITA NO 40/Agra/2017 has held that if the reasons recorded for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee company filed written submissions on 23.11.2017. The assessee has furnished various details including copy of ledger account of the party, confirmation of accounts, bank statement and statement accounts of the assessee company for A.Y. 2013-14. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee company vide letter dtd. 08.12.2017 was asked to show cause why accommodation entries from different parties totaling to Rs. 1,03,95,000/- should not be treated as unexplained cash credit in books of account of assessee company u/s. 68 of the Act and be added back to total income of the assessee company. The details of accommodation entries is as ................. 5. Further it was stated that Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt who has stated that he has provided only accommodation entries on behalf of his company has already retracted the same, hence the genuineness of loan cannot/should not be treated as ingenuine. 6. Inspite of the fact that appellant provided all the relevant evidences to prove that the loan is genuine, the Ld AO to verify the genuineness of these loans issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act. In response to the said notice the Ld AO received reply from all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ringing on record any corroborative evidence to prove that these loans are mere accommodation entries, doubted the genuine loan as non-genuine. Further the Ld AO for the reason best known to her has not discussed the retraction statement made by Shri Vipul Bhatt on behalf of all the companies inspite of having in possession of the same. 2.2. Apart from retraction statement of Shri Vipul Bhatt on whose statement Ld AO is banking could not rebut the number of evidences provided to demonstrate that all these loans are genuine. 2.3. Here it is pertinent to mention that the Ld AO should not have banked upon mere statement which is not sufficient to doubt the genuine loan in the back drop of all the evidences submitted to her during the course of assessment proceedings including retraction statements. By providing all the evidences the appellant has discharged its primary onus of proving. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. 2.4. It is submitted that the loan providing company is genuine and the loans availed has been repaid except an amount of Rs. 6,00,000 in case of M/s Santoshima Tradelink Ltd. 2.5. In support of our contention we now rely on various decisions wherein i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee and even without affording any opportunity of cross examination of Mr. Bhat. The Assessee in this case, has not only discharged its primary onus by establishing the identity of the parties etc. providing confirmation of loans, acknowledgment of return of income filed by the parties who have duly shown the amount of loan in their returns of income and banks statement of loan parties and the Assessee showing the transactions held, but also shown to have deducted TDS on the interest payment made to the parties, which also strengthen the genuineness of the claim of the Assessee. Therefore, on the basis of the general statement made by any 3rd party, without demolishing the case/claim of the Assessee, making of an addition is not logical. b. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of ITA Ward 5(3)(1) vs M/s Iceworth Realty LLP, Mumbai [ITA No. 565 &566/Ahd/2020] has held as under: We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. The addition made by the Assessing Officer invoking Section 68 does not hold it good, since the assessee has filed the confirmation letter from the lenders, Bank statements, Income Tax Return and statement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anies and bank statement from where it can be seen that the transaction had been carried out through banking channel and the loan amount is repaid during the year itself. It is also noted from the records that the creditworthiness of the creditor is established from the balance sheet from where it can be seen that the net worth of of M/s Lukand Textiles Pvt. Ltd. is Rs. 2.08 crores (PB 49), M/s P Saji Textiles Ltd. Is Rs. 3.09 crores (PB 79), M/s Sampada Chemicals Ltd. is Rs. 10.20 crores (PB 114) and M/s Santoshima Tradelink Ltd. is Rs. 45.78 crores (PB 139-140). Further the Directors of these companies in their affidavits have stated that source of funds for loan given to assessee is out of repayment of loan given to other parties. Thus, assessee has discharged its onus to establish the identity of creditors, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors. The Id. AR of the assessee further submitted that having discharged its onus, it is the duty of the AO to disprove the evidence filed by the assessee. The AO except referring to the report of Investigation Wing has not brought any material on record to rebut the evidences filed by the assessee. It is not t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the lower authorities has no merit and we do not concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has proved the identity and creditworthiness of the party from whom the amount was received and genuineness of the transaction. Thus, the decision taken by us in Ground No. 2 to 2.4 of the assessee in ITA No.302/JP/2021 for the assessment year 2012-13 shall apply mutatis mutandis in Ground No. 2 to 2.4 of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 also. Thus Ground No. 2 to 2.4 of the assessee is allowed." e. In the case of The Income Tax Officer 15(2)(3) V/s. M/s MJD - Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 6051/MUM/2018) 10/09/2020, the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai held that, dated "Hence, in our considered view, the assessee has discharged his onus of establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the entities from whom, it had obtained the loans in question. The assessee has also established the genuineness of the transaction by adducing necessary evidence. On the other hand the AO has not brought any material on record to rebut the contention of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are based on the established principles of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court and the decisions of the coordinate Benches including the decision in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Manba Finance Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the assessee. We therefore, uphold the decision of the Ld. CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition made by the AO on account of alleged bogus unsecured loans." h. In the case of Harivardhan Steel & Alloys Private Limited Vs. ITO (ITA No. 3302/M/2019, the ITAT Mumbai has held that "Accordingly, we hold that assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness of the lenders/investors and genuineness of the transactions. Resultantly, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and AO is directed to delete the addition. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed." Since our case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions, we request your honour to direct the Ld AO to delete the unwarranted addition made to the returned income and oblige. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For MOHANLAL JAIN & CO Chartered Accountants 5. Whereas, the CIT(A) was not satisfied with the submissions and material information has upheld the validity of assessment and affirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the assessee has to satisfy the 3 ingredients with respect to identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) has discussed on the provisions of the Act but has confirmed the action of the A.O. We are of the opinion that the assessee has discharged its burden of proof in filling the documents. Whereas the CIT(A) has taken a different view and over looked the explanations of the assessee and sustained the addition of the A.O. Further the Ld. AR submitted that the net worth of these loan creditor companies is very high in comparison to the unsecured loans provided to the assessee in the F.Y.2012-13 and were repaid in the subsequent years. The Ld.AR emphasized on the supporting evidences filed in the paper book and further in the similar cases/ judicial decisions the Hon'ble Tribunal has accepted the facts of these unsecured loan creditors companies and has evaluated with regard to identity, genuineness and creditworthiness in decision making and granted relief. The Ld. AR has relied on the judicial decisions: (i) The Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. M/s Chawla Interbild Construction Co Pvt Ltd (2018) ITA No. 1103 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment year under consideration as well. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessee also submitted the following documents in order to substantiate its claim. (i) The confirmation of loans. (ii) Acknowledgment of returns of income of loan parties. (iii) Copies of relevant pages of bank statements of loan parties. (iv) Copies of bank statements of the Assessee, in which interest payments have been debited. 9.1 However, the Assessing Officer doubted and rejected the same while relying upon the statement of Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt, without providing copy of the his statement to the Assessee and even without affording any opportunity of cross examination of Mr. Bhat. The Assessee in this case, has not only discharged its primary onus by establishing the identity of the parties etc., providing confirmation of loans, acknowledgment of return of income filed by the parties who have duly shown the amount of loan in their returns of income and banks statement of loan parties and the Assessee showing the transactions held, but also shown to have deducted TDS on the interest payment made to the parties, which also strengthen the genuineness of the claim of the Assessee. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ans under consideration have been repaid over a period of time and the appellant has paid interest and deducted TDS thereon as per the provisions of the Act. Relying on the various decisions of the Courts and the Tribunal, the Ld. CIT (A) has held that the assessee has discharged its onus of proving genuineness of the transaction of furnishing the identity of the creditors and documents to prove the transactions. The Ld. CIT (A) has pointed out that no addition/disallowance can be made solely on the basis of statement made u/s 132 (4) of the Act without bringing any corroborative evidence on record. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee, the "I" Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Manba Finance Ltd. ITA Nos. 1448, 1449, 1467/Mum/2017 for the AY 2013-14, 2011-12 and 2010-11. In the said case, survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted by DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai. During the course of survey, the books of account of the assessee were examined which revealed that the assessee had received unsecured loan and share application money from the concerned companies operated and controlled by Sh. Pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und to have been controlled and operated by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, who was one of the leading entry operator. For the other corporate entities, it was found that the assessee has obtained loan from these companies which was arranged by Shri Rakesh Doshi, who on survey had admitted to be arranging bogus accommodation entries. These findings have come out as a result of survey against the assessee's premises. As regards Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, it was noted by the A.O. that in the Revenue's action against Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, he has admitted to have been arranged bogus accommodation entries. The A.O. has noted in detail his modus operandi.As regards Shri Rakesh Doshi, it was noted that survey action u/s. 133A was conducted in his case and he was found to have arranged the accommodation entries. The assessee has claimed Shri Pravin Kumar Jain has duly retracted and the assessee had requested to cross examine him that the same has been denied by the A.O. 35. As regards the statement of Shri Rakesh Doshi, the assessee's claim was that the assessee was never provided with the detail of statements given by Shri Rakesh Doshi despite request. On this issue of retraction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been given to the assessee, as well as Repayment made if any by the assessee. 37. The A.O. has disregarded the evidences submitted by the assessee on the ground of a statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri Rakesh Doshi and the director of the assessee company. In this regard, as already referred hereinabove, the ld. CIT(A) has already found the issues of non submissions of the details obtained from Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri Rakesh Doshi to the assessee, and not given an opportunity to cross examine them to be gross violation of principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the A.O. has also drawn adverse inference on the statement from the Director of the assessee company obtained during survey. In this regard, the ld. CIT(A) has given a finding that the assessee had duly honored the admission on survey regarding the share capital and share premium and that as regards the unsecured loan, upon reference to the materials, the assessee has found that the same was in order and, therefore, the assessee has furnished the necessary materials to support the genuineness of the loan. In this regard, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10.] 39. In this regard, we note that by giving the confirmation, return of income, the detail of PAN, copy of balance sheet and P && L account and copy of its bank statement, the assessee has duly discharged its onus. The A.O. has not found default in these documents. It is also not the case that cash has been deposited in the bank statement before granting of loans by these companies as pointed out by the ld. CIT(A). The A.O.'s grouse is that the assessee has not produced the directors of these companies, and these corporate entities have acquired resources by getting share capital and share premium from other corporate entities. First of all, we note that this is a case of unsecured loan and not share capital and share premium. Further, we find that the above said proviso to section 68 was inserted by Finance Income Tax Act, 1961, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 680 has held that the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not open to give it retrospective effect, by proceeding on the basis that the addition of the proviso to Section 68 of the Act is immaterial and does not change the interpretation of Section 68 of the Act both before and after the adding of the proviso. In any view of the matter the three essential tests while confirming of the Act laid down by the pre the genuineness of the transaction, identity and the namelty of the investor have all been examined by the impugned order of the Tribunal and on facts it was found satisfied. (ii) Further it was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders i.e. they are bogus. The Apex Court in CIT v/s. Lovely Exports (P)Ltd. 317 ITR 218 in the context to the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this regard has correctly made the observation that the assessee having given all the necessary details and has discharged its onus, it was incumbent upon the assessing officer to make furtherenquiry if he was not convinced by the submissions of the assessee. We find that assessing officer has displayed total lack of application of mind by not even issuing a notice to the loan creditors. 24. We find that it is settled law that while making any disallowance/addition, the Assessing Officer needs to make due enquiry. In this case, the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry whatsoever. As noted hereinabove, the assessee has given all the documentary evidences including confirmatory letters, bank statements and financial statements of the creditors. The Assessing Officer has not found any error therein. It has been held in number of cases that when the assessee has given all the necessary details of the loan creditors, including the creditworthiness and genuineness of the identition, the onus upon the assessee is discharged. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the these car has discharged its onus. The Assessing Officer has assrebutted any of the submission of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese circumstances, in our considered opinion, the ld. DR's request that this issue be again remitted to the file of the A.O. to make further necessary enquiries cannot be entertained. The decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court referred by the ld. DR was on a different set of facts, wherein, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court on the facts and circumstances of the case had upheld the certain direction of the ITAT. In the present case, as pointed out hereinabove, in our considered opinion, the assessee has discharged its onus. As noted above, the A.O. has not brought on required cogent material to rebut the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee nor made any enquiry. As noted above, the assessee has given all the necessary evidence including the confirmation letters, bank statement, financial statements of the corporate entities. Hence, in our considered opinion, the identity, creditworthiness, genuineness of the transaction has been proved by the assessee and the onus cast upon the assessee has been discharged. In the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed well reasoned order supported by a appropriate case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count through these companies during the year. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. It is not imperative repeat the facts of the case as similar issue had been raised by the assessee in ITA No. 302/JP/2013 for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the Ground No. 2 to 2.4 of the assessee has been allowed. Since the similar points are involved in the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14, therefore, applying the same analogy, we feel that the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the action of the AO as to the addition of Rs. 54.50 lacs in the case of the assessee company. Hence, the decision taken by us in Ground No. 2 to 2.4 of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13, allowing the grounds of the assessee are reproduced as under:- ' '4.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the AO while making the assessment in the case of the assessee observed that during the year under consideration the assessee company had taken credit entries in the form of unsecured loan from the entities which are 27 ITA NO. 302/JP/2021 M/S. NOBLE TRADELINK PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 1( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese entities are doing genuine business ignoring that the same is verifiable from the financial statements of these creditors and their return of income filed before him which otherwise is not the onus of the assessee. The case laws and the report relied upon by the ld. DR are with reference 28 ITA NO. 302/JP/2021 M/S. NOBLE TRADELINK PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR to the LTCG claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act which are not relevant to the facts of the assessee's case where he took loan and also repaid during the same financial year. Hence, these case are of no help to the revenue. As against this, the ratio laid down by the assessee are squarely applicable to the facts of the assessee. ITO vs Om Shanti Realtors (ITA No. 5615/Mum/2017 dated 01- 03-2019 wherein the Bench observed as under:- ''7. After having gone through the facts of the present case and perusal of the documents and after hearing both parties at length we find that the assessee had already placed on record all the documentary evidence in order to show the identity and creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transactions. We have perused the confirmation filed by the parties, copies of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t sustainable in the eyes of law. Suffice it to say that the finding arrived at by the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, which remains a finding of fact, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse." 3. Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (Raj) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that ...Once the existence of the creditors is proved and such persons own the credits which are found in the books of the assessee, the assessee's onus stands discharged and the latter is not further required to prove the source from which the creditors could have acquired the money deposited with him either in terms of sec. 68 or on general principle. Merely because the depositors explanation about the sources of money was not acceptable to the AO, it cannot be presumed that the deposit made by the creditors is money belonging to assessee itself. If the creditors explanation about the source of deposits is not found to be acceptable, the investment owned by such persons may be subjected to proceedings for inclusion of the amounts as their income from undisclosed sources or if they are found benami the real owner can be brought to tax. In the absence of anything to establish that the sources of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance made of Rs. 80 lacs u/s 68 of the Act by the lower authorities has no merit and we do not concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has proved the identity and creditworthiness of the party from whom the amount was received and genuineness of the transaction. Thus, the decision taken by us in 31 ITA NO. 302/JP/2021 M/S. NOBLE TRADELINK PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR Ground No. 2 to 2.4 of the assessee in ITA No. 302/JP/2021 for the assessment year 2012-13 shall apply mutatis mutandis in Ground No. 2 to 2.4 of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 also. Thus Ground No. 2 to 2.4 of the assessee is allowed 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed." 8. The Ld.AR mentioned that the assessee has cooperated in submitting the information in the assessment proceedings, whereas the A.O has ignored the information, evidences and audited financial statements and unilaterally made addition u/sec 68 of the Act. The Ld. AR emphasized that the assessee has discharged its burden by submitting the financial statements of the lenders where the payment is made through banking channel and identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
