9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y nor the creditworthiness nor the genuineness of the transactions is proved. No reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A) on this issue and the addition is confirmed. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 287/Hyd/2017 - - - Dated:- 21-3-2018 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member For Assessee : Shri S. Rama Rao For Revenue : Smt. N. Swapna, DR ORDER This is assessee s appeal for the A.Y 2006-07 against the order of the learned CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad, dated 2.11.2016. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company, engaged in the business of manufacturing of fertilizers, chemicals and paints, filed its return of income for the A.Y 2006-07 on 24.11.2006 admitting loss of ₹ 5,41,530. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt before deciding the appeal; 3) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 7 ,68,000 being the amount received from Sri B.Raghu of ₹ 3,84,000 and from Sri D.Raghavender of ₹ 3,84,000 as the income of the appellant. 4) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 2,02,000 made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the amount received from Sri N.K.Agarwal represents the income of the appellant. 5) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.l,75,000 made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the amount received from Smt. Om Devi Agarwal represents the income of the appellant. 6) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.ll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b) CIT vs. Maithan International reported in (2015) 275 ITR 123 (Cal.) c) CIT vs. Youth Construction (P) Ltd reported in (2014) 357 ITR 197 (Del.) d) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd vs. Pr.CIT reported in (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) e) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd vs. Pr. CIT reported in (2017) 77 Taxmann.com 285 (S.C) 6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee has received share application money of ₹ 7,68,000 from two persons i.e. Sri B.Raghu and Sri D.Raghavender, each of whom paid ₹ 3,80,000. The assessee had filed the confirmation letters of both the parties wherein they have explained the source for the share application money as their parents income a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 Sri Hari Krishna Reddy Rs.1,50,000 8 Sri P.V.Murali Krishna Rs.2,00,000 9 Sri Y. Rama Rao Rs.1,50,000 10 Y.Sekhar Reddy Rs.1,88,000 8. Before the AO, the assessee had filed the confirmation letters of the parties, but could not demonstrate the mode of acceptance nor could discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness of the parties and the genuineness of the transaction and therefore, the AO made the addition of ₹ 23,51,000.On appeal, the CIT (A) has brought out that Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , whereas the creditworthiness and genuineness of any of the transactions has not been proved by the assessee. The onus was on the assessee to prove with necessary evidence, the genuineness of the transactions. This is the second round of litigation and the assessee, though, has been given a fresh opportunity to prove his case before the AO and the CIT (A), has failed to produce any evidence. No evidence is filed even before us also. In view of the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A). The decisions relied upon by the learned DR have all laid down that the onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction is on the assessee. Therefore, these decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
