9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1718 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s. 68 - unexplained cash credit as the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the said loan - genuineness of the claim, identity and creditworthiness of the lender - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has took into the note of the reply of the assessee in which it was found that in response to the notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, the assessee filed the explanation in view of the letter dated 03.12.2015 in which it was certain evidence was filed such as the lender s confirmation, copy of ITR and balance sheet and copy of his bank statement. The case of the assessee was examined on the basis of genuineness of the claim, identity and creditworthiness of the lender. AO raised the addition only on the basis of the information given by the Investigation Wing. AO nowhere conducted the inquiry on the basis of the information given by the Investigation Wing. Moreover, we noticed that the loan was repaid to M/s. Falak Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and in this regard the evidence lies at page 18 and 19 of the paper book. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
Issues involved:
Deletion of addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding unexplained cash credit. Issue 1: The primary issue in this case is the deletion of the addition of ?1,00,00,000 made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the principles established by various judgments. The CIT(A) emphasized that the onus of proof lies on the assessee to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. In this case, the creditor's identity was established through PAN and income tax return filings, the transaction was genuine as evidenced by banking channels, and creditworthiness was supported by bank statements and balance sheets. The CIT(A) also noted that the Assessing Officer did not adequately consider the evidence provided by the assessee and focused excessively on information from the Investigation Wing. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the law cited by the department was not directly applicable to the unique facts of this case. Issue 2: The second issue pertains to the failure of the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's explanation and evidence adequately. The CIT(A) highlighted that the assessee had submitted relevant documents such as the lender's confirmation, PAN details, income tax return, bank statements, and interest payment details. Despite this, the Assessing Officer primarily relied on information from the Investigation Wing without conducting a thorough inquiry based on the provided evidence. The tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer's approach was flawed and that the CIT(A) had correctly assessed the matter. Issue 3: Another critical aspect of this case is the reliance on legal precedents and judgments to determine the validity of the addition under section 68. The CIT(A) referenced a judgment by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case involving unsecured loans. The High Court's decision emphasized the importance of considering evidence such as payments through bank transactions and tax deductions. The tribunal considered this legal precedent alongside the specific facts of the present case and concluded that the CIT(A) had appropriately applied the law and made a just decision in favor of the assessee. In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of ?1,00,00,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, based on the established principles of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, as well as the inadequacy of the Assessing Officer's inquiry and reliance on external information.
|
