9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 253 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credits - AIR information received by the Revenue - proof of creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction - Held that - Out of the creditors, though 7 creditors were produced before Assessing Officer and their statements have been recorded under section 131 of the Act, but the creditors were having only meagre income and have failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence of source of their income. None of the creditors were maintaining any bank account, therefore, mere recording of the statement and filing acknowledgement of ITR would not be sufficient to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. The evidence and material produced on record are not sufficient to discharge the onus upon assessee to prove creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. The learned Accountant Member was, therefore, right in this approach in confirming all the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Learned Accountant Member was, therefore, justified in reversing the order of the Id. CIT (Appeals) and confirming order of the Assessing Officer - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?13,10,000/- made by the AO under section 68. 2. Sustaining addition of ?2,34,619/- on account of cash credits considered as unexplained. Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of ?13,10,000/- The Revenue appealed against the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition of ?13,10,000/- made by the AO under section 68. The AO had initially disallowed the cash credits from nine individuals due to the assessee's failure to prove their identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO accepted only one creditor, Shri Sudershan Fomra, for ?1,71,500/-. The CIT (A) reversed the AO's decision, accepting the statements and documents provided by the creditors, which included their IT returns, bank accounts, and identity proofs. The CIT (A) concluded that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were sufficiently proven for seven creditors, leading to the deletion of ?13,10,000/- from the total addition. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to discharge the onus as per section 68, citing judgments that emphasize the need to prove the source of the source. The assessee countered that the primary onus was discharged by producing the creditors, who confirmed the loans and provided supporting documents. The Tribunal noted that the creditors had confirmed on oath the fact of lending money and had filed copies of their IT returns. The Tribunal held that the onus of the appellant stood discharged as soon as the lenders appeared before the AO and confirmed the transactions. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT (A)'s order, thus upholding the deletion of ?13,10,000/-. Issue 2: Sustaining Addition of ?2,34,619/- The assessee's cross-objection challenged the CIT (A)'s decision to sustain the addition of ?2,34,619/-. The CIT (A) had upheld this addition due to the lack of credible evidence regarding the money advanced by the creditors, Shri Sita Ram Yadav and Shri Sua Lal Yadav. For Shri Sita Ram Yadav, who had expired, the assessee provided a photocopy of the girdawari of agricultural land. Considering the small amount of ?72,000/- and the land ownership, the Tribunal found it reasonable to accept the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, leading to the deletion of ?72,000/-. For Shri Sua Lal Yadav, whose legal heir appeared before the AO, the Tribunal noted that the heir confirmed the loan related to the settlement of ancestral property. Given the circumstances and the statement of the legal heir, the Tribunal found it reasonable to delete the addition of ?1,62,619/-. Separate Judgments Delivered: The Judicial Member and the Accountant Member had differing opinions, leading to a reference to a Third Member. The Third Member concurred with the Accountant Member, holding that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditors as required under section 68. The Third Member emphasized that mere filing of IT returns and identity proofs was insufficient without evidence of the creditors' financial capacity and the genuineness of the transactions. Final Order: In accordance with the majority view, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal and dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, thus confirming the addition of ?13,10,000/- and sustaining the addition of ?2,34,619/-.
|
