9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 389 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - onus to prove - HELD THAT - During the second round of the assessment proceedings after remand by the Tribunal, the assessee has not filed the required details as called for to explain the credits but the assessee has filed a confirmation, thereafter, which does not contain the date and also not contain the seals/stamp of the company. The said confirmation does not even disclose regarding the mode of advance whether by cheque or cash. Though the bank statement produced by the assessee reflects the depositing of 50,00,000/-, but does not indicates as to whom from the said amount has been received. The assessee has not produced any document before the CIT(A) or before us to prove the identity to the creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. CIT(A) has also observed that the assessee has failed to explain cash credit within the meaning of section 68 - Thus lower authorities have committed no error and we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Decided against assessee.
Issues involved:
The appeal by Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2007-08. Issue 1: Violation of natural justice The appellant contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax did not follow the law of natural justice while confirming additions and disallowances by the Assessing Officer. The appellant argued that the Appeal Order was bad in law, illegal, and violated rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence. Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the grounds that it was erroneous both in law and in fact. The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction, as required under section 68 of the Act. Judgment Details: The assessee company had initially declared a loss in its return of income. The assessment was completed, making additions on account of compensation received for breach of contract and unexplained cash credits. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal, who later confirmed the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act. The appellant, aggrieved by the assessment order, appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal and upheld the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The appellant failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate the cash credit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. During the proceedings, the appellant did not provide the necessary details to explain the cash credits. The confirmation submitted lacked essential information such as date and company seals/stamps. The bank statement showed the deposit but did not clarify the source. The appellant failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal found no error in the decision of the lower authorities and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced in open court on 12th October 2023.
|
