9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee of that previous year. A proviso has been inserted to the said section by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01/04/2013 to provide that where the assessee is a company and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium etc., the explanation furnished by the assessee shall be deemed to be not satisfactory unless the person in whose name such credit is recorded also offers an explanation about nature and source of sum so credited and such explanation is found to be satisfactory. However, this proviso is applicable only from AY 2013-14 and the same is not retrospective in nature as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Private Limited [80 Taxmann.com 272]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith law. Hence, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment. 3. Subject to the above, Special Leave Petition is dismissed. The ratio of said decision has subsequently been followed by various judicial authorities in catena of judicial pronouncements. The said decision has been followed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Private Limited [80 Taxmann.com 272] & subsequently in CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Private Limited [88 Taxmann.com 502]. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court followed the said decision in Pr. CIT V/s Adamine Construction Pvt. Ltd. [107 Taxmann.com 84] against which revenue's Special Leave petition was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported at 107 Taxmann.com 85. Similar is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. The failure to do so would result into violation of assessee's substantive rights to defend his stand in the matter. 2.1 Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal position, we find that the present assessee is in appeal before us for Assessment Year [in short referred to as 'AY'] 2010-11 and contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai, [in short referred to as 'CIT(A)'], Appeal No.CIT(A)-33/Rg.21/337/17-18 dated 16/08/2019 in sustaining certain additions u/s 68. The only ground pressed before us is ground No.2, which read as under: - 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A] erred in confirming the addition of an amount Rs. 4,00,00,000/- on account of alleged bogus unsecured lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard the arguments advanced by both the representatives. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee (AR), drawing out attention to the documents as placed in the paper book, assailed the additions as sustained by Ld. first appellate authority. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The same has duly been deliberated upon and the settled legal position has already been enumerated by us in the opening paragraphs. The Ld. DR relied upon the findings of lower authorities and pleaded for dismissal of appeal. In the above background, our adjudication to the subject matter of appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs. 3.1 The assessee being resident firm is stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... saction, the assessee filed the following documentary evidences during the course of assessment proceedings: - 1. Copy of account confirmation of M/s. Regent Diamond 2. Bank statement showing receipt of payment through banking channels 3. Photocopy of Income Tax Return acknowledgement for the AY 2010-11 4. Copy of Profit/loss a/c and Balance sheet for A.Y. 2010-11 In the aforesaid background, it was submitted that the assessee had proved the identity of loan creditor, its creditworthiness and genuineness of the translations. 3.5 However, rejecting the same, Ld.AO treated the loan as unsecured cash credit and added the same u/s 68. Consequently, interest paid against the same was also reduced from work-in-progress. 4.1 During appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transactions was duly been discharged by the assessee. The assessee was not required to prove the source of source as noted in the opening paragraphs. This is in the backdrop of the fact that the assessee had paid interest on loan after deduction of TDS. Another pertinent fact to be noted is that the loan stood fully squared up 3 years back and therefore, there could be no occasion to treat the same as assessee's income. Merely because the party did not respond after such a long period, the same could not be the sole basis to make additions in the hands of the assessee. By furnishing the documentary evidences, the onus had shifted on revenue to dislodge assessee's claim by bringing on record cogent evidences. The assessee, all along, denie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
