9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 387 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained Cash Credits - Contention of Assessee was that he was able to explain and prove the source of the credit in its account, it was not incumbent upon the assessee to prove the source of income of the creditor. However he had written to the bank to supply necessary details to the Department but the bank refused to divulge information about the transactions in the account of Mr. Masqooth Ali. Held that - the assessee had co-operated to establish the identity and capacity of the creditor and also genuineness of the transaction. The assessee has discharged his liability in proving that the amount of Rs.19,00,000/- which has been reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee was received from Mr. Masqooth Ali.Thus Cash credit is explained by Assessee properly - Appeal allowed in favour of assessee.
Issues:
- Appeal against order of CIT(A)-V, Chennai dated 29.03.2011. - Addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Burden of proof on the assessee to establish the source of credit. - Dispute over the genuineness of the transaction and identity of the creditor. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the CIT(A)'s order dated 29.03.2011. The issue revolved around additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.21,50,000, related to unexplained credit in the savings bank account of the assessee's creditor. The Tribunal previously set aside this issue and remitted it back to the Assessing Officer for reexamination. 2. Upon reexamination, the Assessing Officer added Rs.19.00 lakhs to the income of the assessee, claiming that the creditor failed to explain the source of the credit. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that the appellant had proven the source of the credit, shifting the burden of proof away from the assessee. The CIT(A) mentioned various legal precedents supporting the appellant's contention. 3. The Revenue, aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s decision, contended that the onus lay on the assessee to establish the identity, capacity of the creditor, and genuineness of the transaction under section 68. The Revenue cited legal cases to support their argument. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the facts, noting that the Assessing Officer attempted to verify the transaction but faced non-cooperation from the bank of the creditor. The assessee provided details of the source of receipt, which was not disputed by the creditor. The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its liability in proving the source of the credit received, and it was not obligated to explain the creditor's income source. 5. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from legal precedents cited by the Revenue, highlighting that the assessee had cooperated and identified the creditor, unlike cases where the primary onus was not met. It was noted that the assessee's actions were in line with the law, and the cases relied upon by the Revenue were not applicable to the present circumstances. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the appeal of the Revenue lacked merit. It was concluded that the CIT(A) rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee, and the order was upheld, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
|
