9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, no such proceedings were taken. We are not concerned with the provisions of section 269SS. If the evidence is not sufficient or if Shri Raghuram has no means to pay the sum, the same can be considered in the hands of Shri Raghuram; but in the instant case, the Tax Authorities have not made any efforts in that direction. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA. No.998/Hyd/2016 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2018 - SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT For The Assessee : Shri V. Siva Kumar For The Revenue : Smt. Suman Malik, DR ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, VP. This appeal is filed at the instance of the assessee-company and it pertains to Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Addition of ₹ 10,48,000/- made by the A.O. towards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01, but she has not furnished any proof i.e., copy of the bank account indicating the deposits made by her as and when she received gift and the mode of gift etc. Further, she had stated that she was having income from her profession of fashion designing work. For this also she did not furnish any proof such as copy of the return of income, bank account statement through which the loan was taken etc. In the absence of such details, the A.O. concluded that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the above transaction since creditworthiness of Smt. Jyothi is in dispute. Accordingly, he treated the same as unexplained income of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. 6. Shri V. Nagi Reddy stated to have given a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri V. Nagi Reddy it was stated that he is also a share holder of the assessee-company and he filed the confirmation letters to the effect that the source of funds was the sale proceeds from sale of 4 acres of agricultural land during the years 1991 to 1993 which in turn was given to friends and relatives and upon receipt of the same, the amount was deposited in the company s account. 10. Since assessee furnished additional material in proof of source of funds in the hands of cash creditors it was sent for verification of the Assessing Officer for his comments. The Assessing Officer in turn observed that the additional evidence should not be considered since sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee to produce the evidence before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer were confirmed. Further aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that as per section 68 of the Act, genuineness and identity of the creditor has to be proved by the assessee and the assessee discharged the initial onus placed upon it by not only proving the identity and genuineness of the creditors but also the creditworthiness since all the amounts were received through cheques. Learned Counsel for the Assessee adverted my attention to page 90 91 of the paper book to submit that Shri. V. Nagi Reddy has received the amount by cheques and paid the same to assessee-company. This is the second year of the business of the assessee-company. Page 30 to 50 of the paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Excise Duty were ₹ 4,71,889/-. The advance was received during the time of setting up of the project and thus the appellant cannot be said to have any unexplained cash credit in its first year of business in which it had very little turnover. It is therefore contended that the addition made by the A.O. u/s 68 is not in accordance with law. 16. In the case of Smt.Jyothi she claimed that she has received certain gifts from her parents and relatives and she was also engaged in fashion designing work. She has also filed return of income (page 81 of the paper book) to buttress the contention that in the A.Y. 2007-08 she declared income from fashion designing which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. It was also stated that the gift ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is also not in dispute that both the cash creditors have not only explained the source but also furnished the relevant confirmation letters and they have stated that the amounts were received from the respective creditors and thus they proved their creditworthiness. Neither the A.O. nor the Ld. CIT(A) made any efforts to cross verify or to enquire with the debtors of the creditors. Addition cannot be made on ipsi dixit of the Revenue. In the instant case, the volume of evidence filed by the assessee-company really shows that genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the creditors was explained by the assessee in which event addition, in my humble opinion, cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act. 19. Ld. CIT(A) observed that the cash tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
