9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 786 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2018 - AKIL KURESHI M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. Mr. N.C. Mohanty a/w Ms. Padma Divakar for the appellant None for the respondent P.C. 1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 10th June, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). This appeal relates to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue has urged the following question of law for our consideration : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in law by deleting the addition made by the AO on acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. 5. Being aggrieved by order dated 21st November, 2012, further appeals were filed by the assessee as well as respondent to the Tribunal. The Revenue challenged the deletion of ₹ 2.99 crores while the respondent challenged the upholding of addition of ₹ 36 laksh as being hit by Section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal after considering the facts recorded its finding as under : 5. We had heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that there were total 90 loan creditors from whom unsecured cash credit amounting to ₹ 3,35,00,000/had been introduced in the books of accounts by the assessee, that out of the 90 loan creditors confirmations were submitted only in the case of 77 parties and for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot make any inquiry about 76 creditors out of the 77 Creditors. The FAA has given a categorical finding of fact that no inquiry was made and hence the addition made by the AO for those creditors was not justifiable, except one case. It is said that in the matters related to section 68 burden of proof cannot be discharged to the hilt such matters are decided on the particular facts of the case as well as on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Credibility of the explanation, not the materiality of evidences, is the basis for deciding the cases falling under section 68. The assessee had produced all the required documentary evidences and discharged its onus as far as those 76 creditors are concerned. The AO did not make any further in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng circumstances, in our opinion strengthen, the stand taken by the FAA. So, confirming her order, we decide the effective ground of appeal against the assessee with regard to the creditors who had advance ₹ 36 lacs to it. In our opinion, the FAA had rightly restricted the interest disallowance. 6. While deciding the appeal of the assessee we have held that the FAA had rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 2.99 crores. The AO had made no effort to verify the details filed by the assessee before him. He could have at least made preliminary inquiry about them. He made inquiry about the persons directly and on the basis of such inquiry made an addition of ₹ 3.55 crores. The provisions of Section 68 do not permit such action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
