9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Now, AO is not happy with the source of the source. The revenue is free to go behind the investors and reopen their cases as they have voluntarily and willingly confirmed the investment. In our considered view, the assessee need not have to prove the source of the source and hence, assessee has established the genuineness of the transaction and addition u/s 68 cannot be invoked.- Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1218/Hyd/2015 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2017 - SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao For The Revenue : Shri K.J. Rao ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This is an appeal of the assessee directed against the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enuineness of such gift was furnished. 2.2 AO observed from her bank statement that the amounts were transferred to the account immediately before making the investment and the details of deposits and source for the same were not furnished. Hence, AO added the above investment as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 as the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the investor. 2. Smt. S. Anuradha: stated to have invested an amount of ₹ 16 lakhs during the year. In her confirmation letter, she has confirmed that the investments were out of loans received from friends and relatives. However, no documentary evidence was furnished to prove such loans. 2.3 AO observed that in her bank statement the amounts were transferred into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions towards unexplained investment in share capital of ₹ 80,30,000 u/s 68 of the Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the additions u/s 68 appreciating the fact that the appellant has submitted the confirmation letters with PAN from the parties and shown the genuineness of the transactions. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that when the transactions are through account payee cheque, then no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act, 1961. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the additions u/s. 68 of the Act appreciating the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. DCIT Vs. Rohono Builders, 127 Taxman 523 (Guj) 3. CIT Vs. Lanco Industries Ltd., 242 ITR 357. 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that mere submission of confirmation letters and bank details are not enough as assessee has to prove creditworthiness of the individual investors and genuineness of the transactions. For this proposition, he relied on the following cases: 1. CIT Vs. Nova Promoters Finlease (P) Ltd., ITA No. 342 of 2011, order dated February, 15, 2012. 2. CIT Vs. N Tarika Properties Investment, ITA No. 2080 of 2010, order dated 28th November, 2013. 7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record as well as the decisions cited. The AO has made the addition on the ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed the investment by submitting the confirmation letters from the investors along with their bank statement. The AO is not happy with the sources of the investors but direct source of investment is clearly established by the assessee. In our considered view, the assessee has clearly discharged its part of obligation to establish the genuineness of the transaction. Now, AO is not happy with the source of the source. The revenue is free to go behind the investors and reopen their cases as they have voluntarily and willingly confirmed the investment. In our considered view, the assessee need not have to prove the source of the source and hence, assessee has established the genuineness of the transaction and addition u/s 68 cannot be invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
