9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 537 - AT - Income TaxAddition of unsecured loans - proof of the genuineness of the loan transaction - Held that - AO has filed the relevant details of unsecured loan to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The assessee disclosed the name, address, PAN, IT particulars, confirmations, bank statement etc. The transaction was effected through banking channel. AO relied upon the statement of Mr. Jagdish B. Ahuja Director and Promoters of M/s. Ahuja Group recorded u/s 132. Relying upon the statement of the said person does not itself made the transaction as unexplained u/s 69A. AO nowhere brought any other material to discredit the evidence given by the assessee. Even notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was not issued. Cross-examination of Shri Jagdish B. Ahuja was not allowed. Nothing came into the notice that the transaction was sham, fictitious and artificial. However, it also came into notice that the said receipt was changed consequentially replacing the cheque payment. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of unsecured loans amounting to ?50,00,000 made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Genuineness of the loan transaction and the identity, creditworthiness of the lending entity. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue No. 1: Deletion of Addition of Unsecured Loans The revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of ?50,00,000 made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Assessing Officer (AO) had added this amount to the income of the assessee, alleging it was an unexplained cash transaction with the Ahuja Group. The AO based his decision on information received from the DDIT (Investigation), which indicated that the assessee had entered into cash transactions with the Ahuja Group that were not recorded in the regular books of accounts. The CIT(A), however, deleted the addition, leading to the revenue's appeal. Issue No. 2: Genuineness of the Loan Transaction The CIT(A) reviewed the evidence provided by the assessee, which included the name, address, PAN, IT particulars, confirmations, and bank statements of the lending entity. The transaction was conducted through banking channels, and the CIT(A) found no inconsistency or incoherence in the documentation provided. The CIT(A) noted that the AO had relied heavily on the statements of Mr. Jagdish B. Ahuja, Director and Promoter of the Ahuja Group, recorded under Section 132 of the Act, without allowing the assessee to cross-examine Mr. Ahuja or providing corroborative evidence of the alleged cash transaction. The CIT(A) cited several case laws, including the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC) 2008, which held that the AO must prove that the assessee was in possession of the cash in question. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO had not provided sufficient evidence to discredit the documents submitted by the assessee and had not conducted independent inquiries, such as issuing notices under Section 133(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) emphasized that the burden of proof initially lies with the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, which the assessee had done. Once this burden is discharged, the onus shifts to the revenue to disprove the evidence provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) found that the AO had failed to gather any evidence to show that the transaction was sham, fictitious, or artificial. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO had not provided sufficient evidence to support the addition under Section 69A and had not allowed the assessee to cross-examine the key witness. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided adequate documentation to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. Order: The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) is upheld. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 07.09.2018.
|
