9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter further apart from issuing notices under Section 131 of the Act. Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were creditworthy or were such who could advance the alleged loans. Thus there was no effort made to pursue the so called alleged creditors. The Court further held that if Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee has discharged the burden they lay on him, then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. Thus set aside the order of the CIT(A) by holding that the assessee has duly discharged the its onus by filing the necessary evidences before the authorities below and therefore addition by the AO u/s 68 of the Act is ordered to be deleted. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA Nos. 1633, 1634 And 1637/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2018 - Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member For The Appellant : Shri Dhamesh Shah For The Respondent : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order in para 4.6 that the Department has made all out efforts to locate the lenders but the lenders are not found available at the given address. As a result of this, the appellant was given the opportunity to produce the lenders to ascertain their identity and creditworthiness. However, the appellant failed in his duty to produce the persons for verification of the AO. No doubt, during remand proceedings, it is reported by the AO that in response to notices issue u/s 133(6) of the Act, replies were received from most of the persons, still the creditworthiness of the such alleged lenders are not established before the Department. Therefore, in my opinion, the appellant has not discharged his onus as held in various judicial decisions and it cannot shift his burden and dictate the AO to summon the lenders when such lenders are treated as witnesses of the appellant. 22. Since establishing the creditworthiness of the lenders by the appellant is a crucial factor to establish genuineness of the loan, which the appellant has failed completely, it is abundantly clear that the unsecured loans to the extent of ₹ 2,27,50,000/- cannot be held to be genuine Hence, the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money has come through RTGS or cheque and possibly through the assessee s own accounts and the Authorities below have failed to establish any transfer of money or money trail between the assessee and lenders. The learned A.R. also stated that the CIT(A) doubted the transfer on the basis that in the case of 41 lenders out of 47 there is only one introducer in the bank and this is not a basis for treating the transaction as non genuine. The learned A.R. also submitted that the CIT(A) has doubted that the income tax returns of the lenders as the same could not be scrutinised despite being filed before the AO and therefore submitted that it is not the fault of the assessee that the returns of the lenders could not be scrutinised by the Department. 6. The learned A.R., while referring to pages 17 to 22 of the Paper Book, submitted that the lenders have responded to the notices under Section 133(6) of the Act issued by the AO. The learned A.R. submitted that in all these cases the loans were repaid by way of account payee cheques. The learned A.R. further submitted that the doubt of the Revenue authorities is baseless and without any reason especially in view of the fact the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d thereafter the onus shifts to Revenue authorities to carry out necessary investigations, which we observe that has not been done. We further find that the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act in order to verify the loan transactions were responded and replied by the lenders, copies of which were placed in the paper book . A perusal of the order of the CIT(A) reveals that the various reasons cited by the CIT(A) in para 20 of the appellate order were specifically rebutted by the learned A.R. which appears to be quite justifiable. Out of the total lenders 16 were from Ghatkopar but CIT(A) doubted the trasactions on this basis also. Moreover, opening of account in one bank could not be a basis for doubting the transactions. We further observe that the Revenue authorities have not disputed the interest paid during the year which is duly paid/discharged by the assessee after deducting tax at source. It is very surprising and strange that the Revenue has accepted interest on loan but the genuineness was doubted which appears to be fallacious and wrong. The case of the assessee is supported by a series of decisions such as in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the order of the CIT(A) by holding that the assessee has duly discharged the its onus by filing the necessary evidences before the authorities below and therefore addition by the AO u/s 68 of the Act is ordered to be deleted. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 1634/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 13. The only issue raised by the assessee is with regard to confirmation of addition of ₹ 27,97,283/- by CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of interest paid on unsecured loans which were treated as bogus in A.Y. 2010-11. 14. Since we have already decided in ITA No. 1633/Mum/2017 the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the loans raised by the assessee were genuine, our finding in the above mentioned appeal would , mutatis mutandis, will apply to this appeal also. As a result, the issue of interest on the unsecured loans is decided in favour of the assessee and the AO is directed to the delete the disallowance. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 1637/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 16. The issue raised in the 1st ground of appeal is against confirmation of addition of ₹ 20 lakhs by the CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed as the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the said decisions. 19. The learned D.R., on the other hand, relied on the orders of the Authorities below and submitted that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the said loan despite being specifically asked to do so. The learned D.R. strongly objecting to the arguments of the learned A.R. submitted that the loan from Smt. Rachana Ravan was not genuine as income of the said lady was very meagre to give such huge loan. The learned D.R., relying heavily on the order of the CIT(A), submitted that the First Appellate Authority has given very convincing reasons for treating the loan as doubtful in para 45 of the appellant order. Finally the learned D.R. prayed before the Bench that in view of the aforesaid facts the appeal of the assessee needs to be dismissed. 20. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record and the impugned order we observe that the issue in the present appeal is similar to the issue raised in ITA No. 1633/Mum/2017 in which we have deleted the addition by setting aside the order of the CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee has discharged its onus by furnishing loan confirmations , ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
