9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urce on its own. The ld. AO is an Investigation Officer and if the assessee files some documents, it is within the investigation power of the AO to raise questions on those documents. It cannot be held to be amounting to exploring the source of source. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the assessee has failed to meet with the rebuttal of the ld. AO as enshrined in Section 68 thus the onus which shifted to assessee has not been discharged. - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 1880/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 9-9-2016 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr DR For The Assessee : Shri U.S. Bhati with Shri A.S. Bhati, ARs ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se was established, genuineness of the transactions was confirmed by the proprietor and the amount is received through banking channel from the said concern. Therefore, no addition u/s 68 was called for. The ld. AO did not accept the assessee s reply on following observations:- i) The income of M/s. Hanuman Enterprise was merely ₹ 4.28 lacs and the capital of the proprietor was ₹ 8.25 lacs. ii) The transactions about the turnover of M/s. Hanuman Enterprise did not inspire any confidence inasmuch as even the routine expenses like labour charges, godown rent, freight etc., which were essential for trade of goods, were not recorded in the relevant a/c statements and it was a creation of paper work. iii) In the statement, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lal Mehta, (2009) 176 taxman 270 (Guj.) VTR Marketing vs. ACIT, (2005) 1 SOT 205 (Kol) SK Jain vs. ITO, (2004) 2 SOT 579 (Agra) CIT vs. Diamond products Ltd, (2009) 21 DTR (Del) 9 Mogi Printing Works vs. ITO, (2005) 97 TTJ (Jd) 573 ITO vs. Arihant X-Ray Sonography Clinic (P) Ltd, (2007) 111 TTJ (Ahd) 528 5. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by following observations:- 3.3 I have considered the facts, assessment order as well as written and oral submissions made by the Appellant. I am inclined to agree with the appellant that appellant is not supposed to show source of source. It is the fact that the appellant had furnished copy of account showing name and complete address of the depositor so also confirmation and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 2,08,18,088/- 6. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. Ld. DR vehemently contends that ld. AO has demonstrated that the said creditor namely M/s. Hanuman Enterprise was a paper-book entity and there was no veracity in its alleged books of accounts, dealings or creditworthiness. Once its books of accounts did not inspire any confidence, it cannot be held that the assessee established the creditworthiness of the creditor. 7.1 With such a business where there is neither any opening stock nor closing stock, it is unthinkable that M/s. Hanuman Enterprise will stop the payment to its supplier in order to advance the money to an unknown person, i.e., the assessee. This is grossly against the surrounding circumstances, hum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the money came by way of bank cheques and paid through the process of banking transaction but that itself is of no consequence. [para 23] 7.4 It is further contended that the AO was examining the evidence and explanation of the assessee and not on its own examining source of source. If the assessee gave the particular source and the evidence about its claim of genuineness, it is unthinkable that the AO should stop his investigation. Therefore, it is not a case of examining source of source as held by ld. CIT(A). It is contended by ld. DR that the assessee has failed to discharge its burden and the mere shaky paper work has no legs to stand. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Navodaya Castle has squarely held that mere filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in deleting the addition in question. 9. The ld. DR, in reply, contends that the ld. AO raised various issues on the evidence furnished by the assessee; therefore, the primary onus was effectively rebutted by the AO. The assessee neither before the ld. AO nor before the ld. CIT(A) nor before ITAT has addressed the serious concerns raised by the ld. AO about the veracity and genuineness of the documents. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Navodaya Castle (P) Ltd (supra) has squarely held that mere filing of the paper will not amount to discharge of burden; therefore, the order of AO may be restored. 10. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
