9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The action of the 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). With regard to addition of ₹ 4,00,000/- is concerned, 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. Cash was deposited in the account of the creditor on the same date on which cheque was issued and also the fact that income declared by the creditor is only ₹ 64,007/-, it was held that the creditworthiness of the creditor is not established. The action of the AO in adding ₹ 4,00,000/- received from Smt. Urmila Devi as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot proved the creditworthiness of the creditor is factually incorrect, legally misconceived and untenable. 2.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that unsecured loans aggregating to ₹ 4,00,000/- had been received by account payee cheques from wife of the appellant who had duly confirmed that loans had been advanced to the appellant and as such, addition so sustained is invalid and untenable. It is therefore prayed that, additions made by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted and appeal of the appellant be allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.9.2012 declaring an income of ₹ 8,03,170/-. The assessee is running business of scrap. During assessment proceedings AO noticed that the assessee had shown credit liability in the name of Surya Roshni Limited, Bahadurgarh. To confirm the same, the AO called information u/s. 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and found NIL credit balance of the assessee in the books of M/s Surya Roshni Limited. On reconciliation, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had failed prove the creditworthiness of the creditor, the assessee had received accommodation entry from the creditor and intentionally deposited money in the name of Smt. Urmila Devei. AO held that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the treated the said amount as income from undisclosed sources and added the same u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 30.12.2014 and completed the assessment at ₹ 38,94,750/- u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Against the order of the AO dated 30.12.2014, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 14.10.2016 has partly allowed the appeal and confirmed the aforesaid additions. 3. Aggrieved with impugned order dated 14.10.2016, assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of ₹ 10,70,000/- representing advance received from Shri Ishwar Singh and held to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and he failed to appreciate that deposits in the bank account against sale of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10,70,000/- to the appellant out of sale proceeds received against sale of JCB Machine and as advance against sale of ancestral property for which possession was with Shri Ishwar Singh. Appellant has claimed that there was no requirement to form an agreement in 'writing, verbal agreement is more than sufficient. However, it is a fact on record that the creditor has, not filed any return of income, did not have PAN, did not remember details of his bank account, did not remember date of transaction of property. The creditors also did not produce copy of agreement, sale purchase deed of the property or any other relevant documents relating to property in question. Even the sale consideration of JCB Machine was made in cash. The said property was not reflected in the books of the appellant. The said entry of ₹ 10,70,000/- was found credited in the books of M/s Surya Roshni Limited Bahadurgarh. Thus it is found that the entry of cash credit found in the books of the appellant, the identity 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 trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale purchase deed of the property or any other relevant documents relating to property in question. Even the sale consideration of JCB Machine was made in cash. Even the said property was not reflected in the books of the assessee. The said entry of ₹ 10,70,000/- was found credited in the books of M/s Surya Roshni Limited Bahadurgarh. Thus it was found that the entry of cash credit found in the books of the assessee, the identity 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 action of the 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 cheq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
