2014 (5) TMI 811

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessing Officer erred in confirming addition of Rs.17,000/- on account of loan raised from Shri Banarasi Lal. 3. That the Assessing Officer erred in confirming addition of Rs.18,000/- on account of loan raised from Shri Ajay Kumar. 4. That the Assessing Officer erred in confirming addition of Rs.17,000/- on account of loan raised from Shri Magni Ram. 5. That the Assessing Officer erred in confirming addition of Rs.17,000/- on account of loan raised from Shri Parshotam Dass. 6. That the Assessing Officer erred in confirming addition of Rs.15,000/- on account of loan raised from Shri Sher Singh. 7. That the Assessing Officer erred in confirming addition of Rs.18,000/- on account of loan raised from Shri Jagan Singh. 8. That the Assessi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reasons for reopening of the case and therefore at this stage the ld. counsel cannot argue about the validity of reopening. She also argued that once the case is reopened the primary burden is upon the assessee to meet his obligations. She argued that it was the duty of the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. In her opinion the assessee failed in discharging this burden. Therefore, it has been argued that there was no error in the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and therefore the same needs to be upheld. 18. On the reply stage the ld. counsel has argued that the validity of reopening is not being challenged by them and their contention is that presumably even if the reopening has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by Commissioner of Income Tax(A) as unexplained cash credit from 11 persons and one loan of Rs.18000/- from Shri Khyali Ram was accepted by Commissioner of Income Tax(A). I observe that affidavit from all the 11 creditors were filed before the Assessing Officer wherein the creditors have duly affirmed the transaction with the assessee. Further, out of the 11 creditors in question 9 were pr0duced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and 9 creditors even affirmed the fact of advancing of money by them to the assessee before the Assessing Officer. It is also observed that no notice u/s 131 was issued by the Department to the remaining 2 creditors. In the circumstances in my considered opinion the primary onus which was on the assessee ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gitating the matter further in the higher forum. 6. On careful consideration of above set of facts and on perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, paper book filed by the assessee today and decision of ITAT SMC Bench dated 19.1.2007 (supra), we find that the assessee produced all creditors before the Assessing Officer and their statements were recorded on oath. The disputed creditors also supported the version of the assessee by filing their affidavits and other documents explaining the source of amount which was provided to the assessee as loan wherein the creditors have duly affirmed the transaction with the assessee. On the same set of facts and circumstances, the ITAT SMC Bench granted relief for the partner of the assessee and ....