9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording to the assessee, following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in appeal :- I. Whether under the facts circumstances of the case, the addition u/s 68 of the Act can be made without granting any reasonable opportunity afforded to the creditor for producing the documents despite of assurance, creditor being the witness of the AO and unwarranted actions of the revenue are against the principles of natural justice? II.Whether under the facts circumstances of the case, the addition can be made u/s 68 despite 'request before the AO' for getting the statement of the creditor none action by the AO, can be construed as the denial of the assessee's right of opportunity in-built u/s 68 of the Act available to it? III.Whether under the facts circumstances of the case, the addition can be made even 'identity', 'creditworthiness' and 'genuineness of the transaction' has been substantiated and the 'onus' stands discharged by the assessee u/s 68 of the Act and the same shifted on the revenue? 3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that the assessee filed return declaring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ops and one house from the assessee but he never remembered the date of transactions. Neither any sale deed nor any agreement to sell was executed. He had paid the amount after selling the JCB Machine for `14,25,000/-, the consideration was received by him in cash. Ishwar Singh was not able to adduce any evidence to establish that there was a transaction of sale and purchase of property. Moreover, the assessee had never disclosed that he had sold any ancestral property during the relevant assessment year. 9. The assessee had raised unsecured loan of `4,00,000/- from his wife. In order to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness, the assessee produced details of bank account and copy of return. From the bank account, it was evident that cash deposit of `4,00,000/- was made in the account of wife on 09.12.2012 and on the same very day the cheque was issued to the assessee. The assessee was asked to produce Urmila Devi (his wife) for recording the statement but it was replied that she is out of station and cannot be produced for recording the statement. 10. The CIT(A) while partly allowing the appeal of the assesee upheld only two additions of `10,70,000/- and `4,00,000/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was of a different person and not M/s. Surya Roshni, the creditworthiness of the creditor could not be proved in as much as no evidence was brought on record and the genuineness of the transaction also could not be established by any documentary evidence. In view of the above facts, the faction of the AO in treating the said credit of ₹ 10,70,000/- as income from undisclosed sources u/s 68 is therefore, confirmed. This ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.1 Having examined the contentions of the appellant and the findings of the AO, it is found that the fact remains that cash was deposited on the same date on which cheque was issued to the appellant on 09.12.2012. In such circumstances, the onus is on the appellant to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor. AO has recorded that opportunity to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor was granted to the appellant. However, the appellant failed to avail of such opportunity. The appellant has not produced any additional evidence to prove the genuineness of creditworthiness of the creditor during appeal proceedings as well. In the light of the fact, that cash was deposited in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the above facts, the addition of AO in treating the said credit of ₹ 10,70,000/- as income from undisclosed sources u/s 68 was rightly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on my part, hence, I uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and dismiss the issue in dispute raised by the assessee. 6.2 With regard to addition of ₹ 4,00,000/- is concerned, I find that fact remains that cash was deposited on the same date on which cheque was issued to the assessee on 9.12.2012. In such circumstances, the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor. AO has recorded that opportunity to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor was granted to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to avail of such opportunity. The assessee has not produced any additional evidence to prove the genuineness or creditworthiness of the creditor during appeal proceedings as well. In the light of the fact, that cash was deposited in the account of the creditor on the same date on which cheque was issued an also the fact that income declared by the creditor is only ₹ 64,007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
