9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,65,00,0020/- u/s 68 of the Act. 2. It is prayed that above additions/disallowances made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company and engaged in the business of trading of share and as a general commission agent. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 declaring loss of Rs. 1.70 crores. Thereafter, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rores received from both the lender were brought to tax under section 68 of the Act. 4. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that during assessment the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to file confirmation of unsecured loan, the return of income and bank statement of lender to show the identity and genuineness of the transactions and their creditworthiness. The assessee discharged their primary onus by furnishing required document to prove the identity of persons, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of lenders. The Assessing Officer held that the transactions are facilitated entry. The Assessing Officer had not established the ground of which the transaction was considered for fraudulent loan entry. The As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as was filed. The assessee filed confirmation of parties, bank statements, ITR of both the lenders. The assessee also furnished copy of bank statement of assessee. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that both the authorities disregarded the documentary evidence furnished by assessee. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) solely relied upon the information received from DCIT,Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad and no independent investigation was carried out, no notice or summons were issued to the lenders. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that similar additions were made in the hand of facilitator Dhirajlal Sanghvi by his Assessing Officer. However, on appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the addition in his case was de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to prove the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of lenders. 8. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any finding as to what more evidence was required to file if any other evidence was required from the assessee. In our view the assessee has discharged the primary onus in showing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of such transaction. We further find that similar addition of the same amount was made in the hand of facilitator Dhirajlal Sanghvi. However, on appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the addition was deleted. On further appeal by Revenue before the Tribunal, the order of Ld. CIT(A) was upheld. The relevant part of order of Tribunal in Dhirajlal V Sanghvi (supra) is reproduced below:- "Ground No.5 of the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitter 1 114 High Growth Vin Trade Pvt. Ltd. 8/9/2010 4500000 Caspican Project Pvt. Ltd., Plot No 159 A, first Floor, MLA colony, Road No.12 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-34 2 110 Harish Bohra 5/10/2010 5550000 Raja Reddy Nandygadada Village. Srinivas Sandra Post Banarpet Taluka, Kolar Dist. Karnataka 3 110 Gromax Corporate services Pvt. Ltd. 409, Triputi Towers Nr. Telephone exchange Street GIDC Crossing Road, GIDC Vapi 7/7/2010 8443000 M.N.Pratima House No.106/21, Firrst Floor, Nr. Old Divjyajyoti Scl Akri village E.G.Road 4 109 Joshi Bullion Gems & Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. 412, Laxmi Mall Building No.5 Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400053 27-07-2010 18000000 Raja Reddy Nandy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his group. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in case of facilitated Dhirajlal V Sanghvi (supra), wherein it was held that he had acted as facilitator in providing the funds to the investors and from this purpose he had made noting of funds which were remitted by third party and received by another third party. Hence, we are of view that once the assessee has discharged the primary onus, the Assessing Officer without brining any adverse evidence was not justified in making addition under section 68 of the Act. This ground of assessee's appeal raised by assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
