TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 839
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecured loan as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 which is requested to be quashed. 2.1. Briefly stated facts are that a search action u/s.132(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was carried out in the case of Neptune Group of Cases by the ITO Investigations, Unit-1, Ahmedabad. Subsequently, the assessment u/s.153A(1)(b) r. W. S.144 of the Act was framed vie order dated 31/12/2008. While framing the assessment, the AO made addition on account of unexplained cash credit amounting to R.17,87,000/-. Against the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal, thereby the CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the facts in case the facts are found to be correct, then the addition to be restricted to Rs. 1 lac. The present appeal was originally filed against the confirmation of entire addition of Rs. 17,87,000/-, however, the assessee has revised the ground restricting the ground to the extent of addition of Rs. 1 lac. The appeal was barred by 18 days. The reason for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the ld. Counsel for the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime limit of 60 days was already been completed. Due to the above reason, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time of 60 days after receipt of the order from CIT(A)'s office. This is a bona fide reason due to which there has been a little delay of around 18 days in filing of the appeal before ITAT, Ahmedabad. There was no intention on the part of the company of making the delay in filing of the appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that considering the above, humbly request the Hon'ble Bench of ITAT to condone the delay in filing of appeal. Considering the submission made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and also the case-laws relied upon by the assessee (including the case-law rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust vs. DCIT reported at 280 ITR 357 : 154 Taxman 377), we condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The only ground in this appeal is against confirmation of addition of Rs. 1 lac. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made vide written submissions dated 15/06/2015. 3.1 On the contrary, Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have heard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfirmed. 06. While confirming such addition in respect of Popatlal B. Patel the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the following documents which were submitted vide submission dated 16/11/2010. Sr. No. Document submitted Remark 6.1. Return of Income & PAN Revealing the fact that the assessee has been having the adequate identity, Income Tax Return Filer and being assessed to tax. 6.2. Confirmation on the copy of Account of Unsecured Loan Holder's Books Revealing the fact that the assessee has taken unsecured loan which has been confirmed by the unsecured loan holder. 6.3. Bank Pass Book of Unsecured Loan Holder Revealing the fact that the amount has been given to the assessee through account payee cheque and there has been a sufficient balance in the unsecured loan holder's bank account which proves the capacity and creditworthiness 07. The transaction has been done through account payee cheque and the unsecured loan holder's pass book also does not reveal any cash deposit immediately prior to issuance of loan cheque. The source of source is also through account payee cheque. Such documentary evidences are sufficient enough t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs as well as their confirmation had been furnished, Assessing Officer could not make addition on account of unsecured loan and interest thereon. 11. Gujarat HC - CIT Vs. SaileshKumar Rasiklal Mehta - 224 Taxman 212. Section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 Cash credit [Burden of proof] Assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 Assessing Officer made additions on account of unexplained cash credit in hands of assessee. It was found that all transactions were routed through banking channels and assessee had duly explained source of income Whether Assessing Officer was not justified in treating same as undisclosed income and in making addition under section 68 Held, yes (Para 3] [In favour of assessee]. IT: Where transactions were routed through bank and assessee had explained source of income, additions under section 68 could not be made Para 3: 3. Having heard Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and on perusal of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the ITAT as well as the finding given by the CIT(A) while deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, it appears that on appreciation of evidence and considering the fact th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 Cash credit Assessment year 2005 06. When confirmation of all parties, from which unsecured loans were received by assessee, were furnished along with their permanent account numbers, copy of acknowledgement of income tax returns, etc., and no enquiry was made by Assessing Officer, no addition could be made under section 68 in respect of said unsecured loans [In favour of assessee]. 15 Ahmedabad ITAT - Rohini Builders Vs. DCIT - 117 Taxman 25. Section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 Cash credits Assessment year 1989-90 Whether by proving identity of creditors by giving their complete addresses, GUR Nos./PAN and copies of assessment orders wherever readily available and also by proving capacity of creditors by showing receipts of loan amounts toy account payee cheques drawn from creditors' bank accounts, assessee has discharged initial onus which lay on it in terms of section 68 Held, yes Whether under law assessee could be asked to prove source of credits in its books of account but not source of source Held, yes Whether as phraseology employed is 'may' and not 'shall' in section 68, unsatisfactoriness of explanation does....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en placed upon the assessee u/s 68 and the AO had failed to rebut the same - CIT(A) had deleted the assessment made u/s 68 for both A/Y's 2008-09 and 2009-10 -Held, the initial burden of proof to prove the cash credits was placed upon the assessee but if the discharges the initial burden so placed upon him, then the burden of proof gets shifted upon the AO to disprove the submissions of the assessee - In the instant case, since the assessee had furnished their confirmation letters, income tax returns, the identity of all the creditors in both the years stand established -Further, AO had also identified the owners of all the concerns - It was not disputed that the loan transactions were routed through the banking channels and hence the genuineness of the loan transactions were established -- AO had not brought any material on record to show that the explanation furnished was in any manner, unsatisfactory or there was no reliable evidence with the ssessee - Thus, CIT(A) had given a definite finding that the evidences filed by the assessee remained un-rebutted - Addition made u/s. 68 was rightly deleted - Finding given by CIT(A) was upheld - Revenue's appeal for A/Y 2008-09 and 20....