9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1356 - HC - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - Held that - In these cases the court was concerned with the orders of the Income Tax officers making additions of the share application money received by the assessee companies. In those cases considering the fact that the assessee would not have any knowledge about source of the respective applicant or even their identity and the assessee having produced the share application form the share certificates the PAN card of the applicants was taken to have discharged their burden under Section 68 of the Income tax Act. According to us such a factual situation is totally incomparable with the case of the assessee who has borrowed money from few known lenders whose creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction were matters for the assessee to prove. The assessee having failed to discharge the burden of proof the assessing officer the 1st appellate authority and the Tribunal were fully justified in making the additions and confirming the same. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Assessment of unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Burden of proof on the assessee regarding the source, identity, and genuineness of loans availed. 3. Interpretation of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and related legal obligations. 4. Application of precedents in similar cases to determine burden of proof. Issue 1: Assessment of unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The appeal was filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the assessment year 2003-2004. The assessing officer added a specific amount to the income of the assessee as unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to the failure of the assessee to prove the source or genuineness of the loans availed. The assessee produced accounts, confirmation letters, and PAN cards of some lenders during the appeal process. The Remand Report highlighted the lack of proper loan confirmations from certain parties, leading to doubts about the genuineness of the loans. Issue 2: Burden of proof on the assessee regarding the source, identity, and genuineness of loans availed: The questions of law framed included whether the burden of proving the source of loans from creditors rests on the assessee, and whether the assessee adequately discharged the burden under Section 68 by establishing the identity of creditors and the method of loan receipt. The Tribunal confirmed the addition of a significant amount to the assessee's income, leading to the appeal. The court emphasized that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, despite producing some documents. The law requires the assessee to establish the identity of creditors, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of transactions to avoid additions under Section 68. Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and related legal obligations: The court analyzed Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which places the onus on the assessee to explain any sum credited in their books. The provision necessitates the assessee to prove the identity of creditors, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of transactions. The court noted that mere banking transactions and document production do not suffice to meet the burden under Section 68. It clarified that the burden of proof lies with the assessee to establish the legitimacy of credits in their books. Issue 4: Application of precedents in similar cases to determine burden of proof: The court referenced a judgment by the Calcutta High Court emphasizing the necessity for the assessee to prove the identity of creditors, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of transactions to avoid additions under Section 68. While the assessee relied on judgments from other High Courts, the court differentiated those cases, highlighting the unique circumstances of the present case where the burden of proof regarding known lenders was not adequately discharged. Ultimately, the court upheld the additions made by the assessing officer, the 1st appellate authority, and the Tribunal, dismissing the appeal in favor of the Revenue. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in assessing unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and the corresponding burden of proof on the assessee to establish the legitimacy of transactions and credits in their books.
|
