9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1412 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - proof of creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction - Held that - Though, the assessee filed copy of the confirmation and copy of the election card of the creditor which may prove identity of creditor but the assessee failed to prove creditworthiness of the creditor. The creditor has no explanation of source of the cash deposited in his bank account Form (J) were filed before the Ld.CIT(A) showing sale proceeds of agricultural produce but these were also not sufficient to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor because after excluding the expenses incurred for earning agricultural income and household expenses , nothing would be left with the creditor because only Form (J) were filed for ₹ 5,73,843/- only in which also Ld.CIT(A) found certain defects. No other evidence has been produced to prove creditworthiness of the creditor. Assessee failed to produce the creditor before the AO for examination in order to find out the truth in the matter, therefore, the assessee deliberately withhold the creditor to be produced before the AO for examination. If the assessee was interested in producing the creditor for examination by the income tax authorities, the assessee should have made a request to the Ld.CIT(A) in this respect, therefore, the facts remained that the assessee could not produce sufficient evidences before the authorities below to prove creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to addition of unexplained loan received from Sh. Balwant Singh for A.Y.2008-09. Analysis: The appeal was against the addition of ?11,25,000 on account of an unexplained loan received from Sh. Balwant Singh. The assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor. The depositor had not filed an income tax return and did not appear to have the means to provide such a large sum. The amounts deposited were suspicious, with significant sums being deposited in cash on the same day as drafts issued to the assessee. The assessee's lack of knowledge about the depositor and failure to produce the creditor for examination raised doubts. The Assessing Officer concluded that the amount was introduced from an undisclosed source and added it to the assessee's income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted confirmations of the lender, the lender's election card, bank statements, and sale proceeds of agricultural commodities to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. However, the additional evidence provided was insufficient to establish the creditworthiness of the creditor. The Ld.CIT(A) found discrepancies in the documents provided, highlighting that the lender would have spent most of the deposited amount on agricultural income and personal expenses, leaving little for the loan. The absence of a relationship between the assessee and the creditor further weakened the case. Consequently, the addition was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. During the appeal, the assessee referenced a case involving a loan from Sh. Balwinder Singh to the assessee's brother, where the addition was deleted based on similar facts. However, the tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. Despite submitting some documents proving the creditor's identity, the lack of evidence regarding the source of the cash deposits and the creditor's creditworthiness led to the dismissal of the appeal. The tribunal cited precedents where similar circumstances resulted in additions under section 68 of the Act. The failure to produce the creditor for examination further weakened the assessee's case, as it prevented the authorities from verifying the transaction's authenticity. Ultimately, the tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the addition of the unexplained loan amount.
|
