9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar, ld. DR, defended the addition made by the Assessing Officer by contending that the First Appellate Authority deleted the addition without appreciating the fact that onus was upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of transaction and even after providing opportunity to the assessee, the onus was not discharged. It was contended that the addition was deleted in a mechanical manner, when there was evidence that there were suspicious deposits, made by the assessee and the same were not explained. It was also contended that the parties were not produced by the assessee. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs P. Mohankala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC), CIT vs Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC), Kamal Motors vs CIT (2003) 131 taxman 155 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the notices and in one case, the husband of the party personally appeared before the Assessing Officer and the last one was represented by his authorized representative to explain the source of the loans. Miss. Priyanka Deora and her mother Smt. Meena Deora also appeared and explained the source from which loan were given to the assessee. Totality of facts, clearly indicates that the concerned parties accepted to have provided loan to the assessee. The case of the assessee is further fortified by the fact that the summons issued u/s 133(6) of the Act to all the parties were duly received and complied with, meaning thereby, all the parties/loan creditors are existing one and confirmed to have provided loan to the assessee. It is not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eemed to be not satisfactory, unless- (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB)of section 10." 2.4. As per section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so cast upon. First burden is upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upports the case of the assessee. In the case of a cash entry, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditor but also the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The onus lies on the assessee, under the facts available on record. A harmonious construction of section 106 of the evidence Act and section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT vs Korlay Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
