9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Shri Salil Agarwal, Advocate ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The revenue has questioned first appellate order on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong, perverse, illegal and against the provisions of law which is liable to be reversed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 amounting to ₹ 1,03,00,000/- being bogus accommodation entry received from M/s. Prateek Securities (P) Ltd. who is found to be an entry operator. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annelised its own money in the shape of unsecured loan with the help of the said company. He held further that the identity, creditworthiness of the investor and genuineness of the transaction has not been proved by the assessee to establish the claimed unsecured loan. He accordingly held that that amount of ₹ 1,03,00,000/- raised through M/s. Prateek Securities Pvt. Ltd. is bogus and assessee s own money which has been routed through the account of M/s. Prateek Securities Pvt. Ltd. He accordingly added the amount u/s 68 of the Act in the income of the assessee. He also added ₹ 11,00,000/- claimed to have received as unsecured loan from Shorya Realty Pvt. Ltd. u/s 68 of the Act on the basis that no confirmation or balance sheet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich has been channelized in the shape of unsecured loans. He submitted that there were no basis to reject the assessee s explanation and the facts appearing in the documentary evidence without giving proper opportunity of being heard. He reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by furnishing the relevant documentary evidence like confirmations, copies of bank statements, Permanent Account Numbers and copies of returns/balance sheets of the creditors companies. He pointed out the transactions were made through banking channels without examining these evidence on record and without supplying the copy of statements or relevant evidence in possession of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit in the account of the creditors. He placed reliance on the following decisions :- 1. ITO vs. M/s. Excellent Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 871/Del/2010 (asstt. year 2003-04) order dated 25.5.2012 2. ACIT vs. M/s. Global Buildwell (India) Ltd. in ITA No. 4210/Del/2010 (asstt. year 2003-04) order dated 25.1.2012 3. CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd. in ITA No. 232/2012, judgment dated 22.11.2012 (Delhi High Court) 4. CIT vs. Supreme Polyproplene Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 266/2011 decision dated 30.10.2012 (Delhi High Court). 5. We have considered the above submissions and have gone through the orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decision relied upon. In a case of cash credit the assessee has to estab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts that they only used to sign bank cheques and papers and do not know anything about these companies. From such information received from investigation wing of the department, the AO has inferred that circumstantial evidences, surrounding circumstances and human probabilities etc. clearly indicate in the case that assesee has received accommodation entries. Then he has taken strength from the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (supra), Sunil Siddhartha vs. CIT (supra) and other holding that the surrounding circumstances and human probabilities are to be kept in view in taxation and that it was opened to the income tax authorities to go behind a transaction and examine whether the transaction was genuine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s furnished in support of the claim and has given more weightage to the general statements of some of the directors of the group companies alleged to have been engaged in providing accommodation entries to the beneficiaries that too without supplying those statements to the assessee or without affording opportunity to cross examine those directors by the assessee. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in its recent decision dated 22.11.2012 in the case of CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd. (supra) has been pleased to hold as under :- 8. The decision in this case is based on the peculiar facts which attracts the ratio of Lovely Exports (supra). Where the assessee adduces evidence in support of the share application monies, it is open to the assessing officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
