9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. It is the responsibility of the assessee to substantiate the claim of receipt of loan in the year 2001. According to Ld A.R, the documents relating to criminal proceedings may throw light on the above said claim. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the same afresh in the light of documents that may be furnished by the assessee in this regard. For remaining amount of ₹ 3.00 lakhs, the claim of the assessee is that the same is required to be given to Shri Ruban Thomas, the son in law of the assessee, i.e., according to the assessee, the same represents reimbursement of litigation expenses met by his son-in-law. This issue is conn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and further a sum of ₹ 5.75 lakhs was paid by a person named Shri Ruban Thomas, who was son in law of the assessee. Thus Shri A.L. Prasad was paid a sum of ₹ 12.00 lakhs in aggregate. It was claimed that Shri Ruban Thomas, who is the son in law of the assessee, has advanced the amount of ₹ 5.75 Lakhs to Shri A.L. Prasad on behalf of the company. It was further submitted that Shri A.L. Prasad failed to arrange foreign funds and hence, the company demanded back the amount of₹ 12.00 lakhs paid to him. In that connection, it was claimed that criminal proceedings were also initiated against Mr.A.L.Prasad and finally the dispute was settled out of Court. In accordance with settlement, the assessee received a sum of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was paid by way of cash. 8. The ld. DR in his argument pointed out that Shri Ruban Thomas is working in Australia, and the assessee could not properly explain as to how a person working in Australia could give funds to the tune of ₹ 5.75 lakhs by way of cash to a person residing in Hyderabad. Accordingly, ld. DR submitted that the explanation furnished by the assessee defies logic and hence, the claim of receipt of loan of ₹ 5.75 lakhs was rightly rejected by the AO. 9. There should not be any doubt that the initial onus to prove cash credits or investments is placed upon the assessee u/s 68 / 69 of the IT Act. In the instant case, there is no dispute that a sum of ₹ 18.00 lakhs was shown as amount received from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riminal proceedings before the tax authorities. 12. Having heard rival submissions, I am of the view that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to prove the claim of receipt of ₹ 5.75 lakhs from his son-in law, since the same has been claimed to have been received in 2001. If it is proved that the above said amount was received in 2001, the same cannot be assessed during the year under consideration, since what was received during the year under consideration was only refund of amount given to Shri Prasad. However, I make it clear that it is the responsibility of the assessee to substantiate the claim of receipt of loan in the year 2001. According to Ld A.R, the documents rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
