9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstant appeal, the appellant/assessee seeks to assail the order dated 27.04.2023, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short "Tribunal"]. 4. The record shows that in the course of the assessment proceedings, it emerged that Rs.14,00,000/- had been credited to the account of the appellant/assessee. On enquiry, it was found that ostensibly, the said amount was received by the appellant/assessee as a loan from an entity named Gee Wire Pvt. Ltd [in short "GWPL"]. 5. In support of this plea, a loan agreement was produced. A perusal of the loan agreement shows that it was printed on the letterhead of the appellant/assessee. 5.1 Facially, the loan agreement is titled "unsecured term loan agreement". The said loan agreement is dated 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the courts for discharging the onus stood satisfied. According to Mr Jhamba, the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction were established. 7.1 In support of this plea, Mr Jhamba says that the appellant/assessee could not go beyond production of the aforementioned loan agreement, as the name of the lender i.e., GWPL, was struck off from the Register of Companies in and about August, 2018. 7.2 It is also the submission of Mr Jhamba that it was well within the powers of the AO to issue requisite notices and collect necessary information with regard to the lender, i.e., GWPL. 8. It is, thus, the submission of Mr Jhamba that since there was remission of liability, the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act came into p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been struck off from the Register of Companies, it would have been equally futile if notices had been issued by the AO.
15. In any event, in our opinion, the initial onus was not discharged by the appellant/assessee. Besides this, the argument advanced that since there was remission of liability Section 41(1) of the Act would apply and not the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, as rightly held by the Tribunal, is an untenable submission.
15.1 Since the genuineness of the loan transaction was doubted, no liability, in law, fructified requiring remission.
16. Given the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
17. The appeal and the pending applications are, accordingly, closed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
