TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 30,00,000 made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by treating an unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit can be sustained where the assessee furnished bank records, financial statements, tax audit report, ledger confirmations and return of income and the revenue did not controvert or corroboratively disprove those materials or cross-examine the third-party statements relied upon by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A).
Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether the three customary ingredients relied on by revenueidentity of the lender, mode of payment and creditworthinesswere effectively controverted by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). The assessee had produced bank account copies, financial statements, tax audit report, ledger confirmation and return of income showing the loan routed through banking channel. The CIT(A) upheld the addition by treating the lender and transactions as part of an accommodation-entry conduit, relying on pattern of transactions and a precedent concerning a different factual matrix. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not rebut or disprove the documentary evidence filed by the assessee, did not obtain corroborative material from alleged third parties, and did not point out specific infirmities in the furnished records; mere reliance on transactional patterns without controverting the assessee's evidence was insufficient to sustain the addition under section 68.
Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 30,00,000 under section 68 is deleted and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
