9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PER H.S. SIDHU : JM Assessee has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 26.12.2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2005-06 on the following grounds:- 1 That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts on record. 2. That whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the appeal of addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- taken as loan by cheque and repaid by cheque.? 3. That the case of the assessee was covered with the case of Golden Remedies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2007) 18 SOP 260 Delhi in which it was held that taking of loan by cheque and repayment of loan by cheque do not come under the provisions of Section 68 and such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who vide impugned order dated 26.12.2013 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 4. Against the impugned order dated 26.12.2013, assessee has filed the Appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee has stated that assessee has received a loan from Sh. Prem Chand Batra for ₹ 5 lacs on 20.7.2004 vide account payee cheque and during the assessment hearing has filed the complete details of the lender Sh. Prem Chand Batra vide his letter dated 12.11.2010, who is duly assessed to income tax alongwith the PAN card, copy of balance sheet and affidavit and Bank Statement regarding giving loan to Himanshu Chawla. He further stated that if it has been an accommodation entry the assessee could not have not repai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h apparently shows that the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the alleged claim of Loan are not at all proved as the assessee had actually received the accommodation entry as found in the enquiries conducted by DIT (Inv) New Delhi and the AO and accordingly, he confirmed the action of the AO. However, we note that the assessee Sh. Himanshu Chawla received a loan from Sh. Prem Chand Batra for ₹ 5,00,000/- on 20.07.2004 by duly account payee cheque. During the assessment proceedings the assessee filed complete details of the lender Sh. Prem Chand Batra vide letter dated 12.11.2010. The lender Sh. Prem Chand Chawla has given a loan of ₹ 5,00,000/- to Sh. Himanshu Chawla. Sh. Prem Chand Batra is duly assessed to inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord to prove his allegation that the impugned amount represented assessee's undisclosed income. But the AO has not done any efforts in this regard. Additions are made totally on surmises basis which are not maintainable in law. It is evident that assessee has established identity, source and genuineness of the transaction which was done only through banking channels. To support our aforesaid view, we draw support from the following decisions:- A. CIT .v. Gangeshwari Metal (P.) Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Delhi) (HC) S.68 Cash credits-Share application money-Evidence furnished by assessee-Addition was not justified. The assessee received certain amount as share application money. In order to prove genuineness of transaction, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel Alloys Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 220 in which it has been held: Cash credits-- Unexplained investments--Burden of proof--Share application money--Assessee explaining source' of money-Identities of applicants and their creditworthiness established--Burden of proof discharged by assessee--Onus shifted to Department--No evidence to show transactions were not genuine--Sections 68 and 69 not applicable--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 68, 69: 7.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents of the Hon ble Supreme Court and High Court, we are of the view that the assessee has fully proved its burden and discharged the onus upon the Department, however, no contrary evidence was sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
