2017 (11) TMI 2057 - HC - Income Tax

Additions made u/s 68 - excessive loan, cash credit entries, and advances received - Onus to prove - HELD THAT - We find that in the first place the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of cash credit entries found recorded in his account books. It was for the assessee to have led evidence before the assessing officer in that regard. Admittedly, the assessee did not lead such evidence and the assessing officer, therefore, proceeded to make the additions u/s 68 of the Act. Then, in appeal also the assessee did not file any additional evidence, which was the duty of the assessee alone. Inasmuch as, the assessee has not raised this ground even before the Tribunal - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal challenges additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for excessive loan, cash credit entries, and advances received.

Addition under Section 68:
The assessing officer made additions under Section 68 of the Act due to excess loan to M/s Rohini Construction (P) Ltd. and cash credit entries in land sale and advances received accounts.

Challenge before CIT (Appeals):
The assessee appealed the additions before the CIT (Appeals), submitting written arguments with documents to explain the genuineness of the cash credit entries.

Dismissal of Appeal:
The CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal without considering the documents submitted by the assessee, leading to a further dismissal of the appeal before the Tribunal.

Contentions:
The assessee argued that the CIT (Appeals) should have directed an inquiry into the written submissions under Section 250 (4) and Section 250 (5) of the Act, citing a Bombay High Court judgment.

Department's Response:
The department contended that the assessee did not file an application under Rule 46-A, present additional evidence before the Tribunal, or raise arguments invoking the powers of the CIT (Appeals).

Judgment:
The court held that the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the cash credit entries, which was not done before the assessing officer or in the appeal. As the assessee did not file for additional evidence or request the powers of the CIT (Appeals), the appeal was dismissed in favor of the department.