9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has taken substantial amounts of loan from these parties, the primary onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the parties. Therefore, for these parties in our considered view, Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in facts and in law in allowing relief to the assessee. We have only taken note of few apparent cases, where the assessee has not been able to clearly prove the creditworthiness of the parties or the genuineness of the transaction, in our considered view. In other cases, where the assessee has responded to notice issued under section 133 (6) of the Act or has furnished ITR declaring a reasonable amount of income or furnished further evidences of genuineness of transactions, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly allowed relief to the assessee. In cases where assessee has specifically filed reply in response to notice under Section 133(6) of the Act i.e. in cases of Hanuman Prasad P. Jain, Ketan V. Tembhurkar, J.P. & Co. P.J. Patel, Varsha Mohanlal Nagar, Nitinbhai K. Shah, Sarveshdevi Sureshkumar Chauhan and Ashok as given in Annexure "A" filed before us, we are of the view that relief may be gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. It be so held the addition of Rs. 31,02,959/- be deleted. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal." We shall first take up the Department's appeal (in ITA No. 60/Ahd/2020) 4. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened under section 148 of the Act and the assessee was asked to submit details of creditors during the course of assessment. The assessing officer observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had received a total unsecured loans amounting to ₹ 14,94,29,083/-. The assessee submitted a total list of 164 persons from whom unsecured loans had allegedly been borrowed by the assessee during the year. On consideration of the details of creditors supplied by the assessee, the assessing officer divided the same into 3 categories: firstly with respect to 30 creditors (from whom unsecured loan amounting to ₹ 2,84,40,691/- was taken), the assessing Officer observed that the assessee had failed to furnish even the basic documents like the PAN of the assessee. Secondly, with respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that credits have been received in the bank accounts of the assessee through normal banking channels, and once the assessee has furnished necessary information like PAN and copy of ITR, the onus of the assessee stands discharged. Ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the assessee had submitted satisfactory explanation about these credits and also the confirmations from the parties and such evidence placed by the assessee cannot be ignored. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that since the assessee has submitted names, address, PAN, copy of bank statement, copy of acknowledgement of ITR and confirmation of ledger accounts, the onus of the assessee stands discharged with respect to these creditors. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) gave relief to the assessee for a sum of ₹ 11,54,94,016/-. 6. The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid additions deleted by Ld. CIT(Appeals). 7. During the course of arguments before us, Ld. DR submitted that no fresh evidence has been placed on record by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to justify the relief which was was given to the assessee in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only ledger confirmation has been provided and ITR of one Shashi Sharma has been submitted showing income of ₹ 8.62 lakhs, which again does not prove the identity and creditworthiness of the said party. With respect to R.K. Enterprises (₹ 12.5 lakhs), only ledger confirmation has been placed on record and apparently the creditworthiness of the said party has clearly not been proved. Again the case of Vastram (₹ 10.19 lakhs) only ledger confirmation has been provided and hence there is no basis of giving relief for this amount. The same goes for Hitesh Babulal Shah (₹ 10.13 lakhs) where only confirmation of account has provided and hence creditworthiness has not been proved. Similarly, for Devraj Jain (₹ 10 lakhs), the assessee has only furnished confirmation of account and PAN number and hence, there is no basis for allowing relief to the assessee for this lender. In case of Mayaben (₹ 8.10lakhs), the assessee has only furnished confirmation of account and accordingly, the creditworthiness of the said party has not been proved. Similarly for Ratnakar (₹ 6.57 lakhs), the assessee has only furnished confirmation of account and therefore in o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing officer. As noted by the assessing officer, the above party had shown a meagre income of 4.5 lakhs and hence the creditworthiness of the said party had not been proved by the assessee. We observe that the assessee has not submitted any additional details before Ld. CIT(Appeals) in support of the creditworthiness of the aforesaid party, including the basic details like bank statement of the said party. Accordingly, we see no basis on which the relief has been afforded by Ld. CIT(Appeals) for the above party. Similarly, for Shyam Corporation (₹ 25 lakhs), the assessee has only provided confirmation of account and showing of a meagre income, which does not justify as to how the said land that had given this amount to the assessee. In our view, Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in giving relief to the assessee since the assessee has clearly not prove the creditworthiness of the said party. At the moment, we are not even looking into cases, where the parties have filed responses in response to notices issued by the assessing officer under section 133 (6) of the Act and we are only restricting the observations to some glearing cases where clearly and apparently, the assessee has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee shall not be pressing addition with respect to this ground and accordingly, this amount is hereby confirmed. With respect to addition of ₹ 31.02 lakhs for Alpaben Shah and Prakash Parmar, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) wherein he has held that looking into the assessee's set of facts, the assessee has not been able to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of these parties. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference. However, so far as addition of ₹ 2.84 crores is concerned wherein the addition has been confirmed on the ground that PAN has not been furnished by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) observed that during the course of remand proceedings, PAN of such parties was not available and was not handed over to the assessing officer and accordingly, the additions with respect to this amount was liable to be confirmed. However, before us the counsel for the assessee submitted PAN/ITR of all the aforesaid parties and also in some cases confirmation of the parties and reply to notices under section 133 (6) of the Act were also furnished before us. Accordingly, the counsel for the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
