Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1496 - ITAT DELHIUnexplained cash credit u/s 68 - inability of the creditors to explain the source of source - Assessee argued unsecured loans had been received by account payee cheques from identifiable parties who had duly confirmed in their statement that loans had been advanced to the appellant - HELD THAT:- It is well settled position of law and as stated above that appellant is not obliged to prove source of source of the credits. The burden of the assessee is to restrict himself to prove and explain the source of the credit; and once creditor has appeared and accepted that he has provided loan and, there is nothing to prove that money received by the appellant is his own money. Assessee has discharged the primary onus on him to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Thereafter, it was the duty of the AO to investigate and found fault with the aforesaid documents that was produced before him. Without doing so, simply by taking one statement of an old man of 79 years that he has sold the agricultural produce to one firm – M/s. Girdhari Lal Ramesh Chander cannot be a sole ground that entire statement of Faquir Chand and documents which have corroborated the statement of Faquir Chand, cannot be countenanced. AO has failed to bring on record any deficiency or could challenge the veracity of the documents filed before him. We find that Faquir Chand had enough creditworthiness and the transactions being through account payee need to be taken as genuine in the absence of any other evidences which is not on record. Therefore, we delete the disallowance. For Joginder Mongia, the assessee had brought the creditor before the AO and has also produced the aforesaid documents to discharge its primary onus. We find that the authorities below have not been able to point out any discrepancy or defect in any of these documents produced by the assessee. In the absence of same, simply disallowing and making an assertion by just saying that it is bogus transaction, is legally untenable, therefore, we are inclined to delete the addition. In respect of Satayawanti, we find that she is the mother of the assessee and she deposed before the AO that she is receiving money from M/s. Shree Gian Chand, a commission agent -However, during assessment proceedings, we find that the partner / proprietor of M/s. Shree Gian Chand denied to have any transaction with the said Satayawanti. Satayawanti’s contention is that the amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- has accumulated from her past savings and also she earns ₹ 25,000/- per annum from stitching works. The AO has also taken note of the fact that cash was deposited on the same date before issuance of cheque by Satayawanti to assessee - No infirmity in the order passed by the authorities below with regard to this creditor. Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|