9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 980 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - AO has given the opportunity to the appellant to defend the case. But for the search at the premises of Shri. Gautam Chand Jain, this information about accommodation entries would not have come to light. The statement given by Mr.Jain U/s.132(4) is a valid evidence. The very purpose of providing accommodation entries is to create an impression of genuineness in a transaction while actually is impermissible in law. When this was the situation, and when appellant was sounded, it was the duty of Appellant to provide with further evidence to prove that the transaction was genuine. Since the Appellant has not succeeded in proving a tainted transaction with additional evidence, am constrained to accept the conclusion of the Assessing Officer as in order - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
Appeal against CIT(A) order upholding addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2007-2008. Analysis: The appeals were filed against the CIT(A) orders for the AY 2007-2008. The appellant raised various grounds challenging the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that all necessary materials were provided, and the reopening of assessment beyond four years was unsustainable. It was contended that the Assessing Officer failed to issue summons and examine the lenders, which violated the principles of natural justice. The appellant relied on court decisions to support the claim that not allowing cross-examination of witnesses was a serious flaw. Additionally, it was argued that the loans were repaid through genuine transactions via regular banking channels, and the shares were transferred as repayment. The appellant emphasized that all transactions were reflected in bank accounts and demat accounts, proving the genuineness of the transactions. The appellant also highlighted that the Assessing Officer ignored relevant details and documents while making the addition under section 68. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on information received regarding accommodation entries provided by certain individuals. Despite the appellant not appearing before the CIT(A), the appeal was adjudicated and dismissed on merits. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the appellant failed to provide additional evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) considered the statement given by one of the individuals involved in providing accommodation entries as valid evidence. The CIT(A) concluded that since the appellant could not prove the transactions were genuine, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld. The ITAT Chennai dismissed the appeals, noting that the facts in all the appeals were identical to the main appeal for the AY 2007-2008. The ITAT upheld the lower authorities' orders, stating that there was no reason to interfere. Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessees for the AY 2007-2008 were dismissed.
|
