TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 712
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....('ITAT') in ITA No.2268/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-2007. 2. The question sought to be urged by the Assessee in the present appeal is whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] dated 17th January 2013, sustaining an addition made by the Assessing Officer ('AO') by the order dated 29th December 2008, of a sum of Rs. 2.40 crore under Section 68 of the Act. 3. The Appellant/Assessee, which is a private company, states that during the relevant previous year, it had taken unsecured loans of Rs. 4,04,30,000/- from thirteen parties for business purposes. The Assessee filed its return on 30th November, 2006, declaring nil income. The retur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the ITAT, which by the order dated 14th May 2010, held that the CIT(A) had not given any specific finding regarding the creditworthiness of the loan creditors. Accordingly while setting aside the order of the CIT(A), the ITAT remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision to give a specific finding regarding the creditworthiness of the loan creditors. 6. It is stated that in the assessment proceedings before the CIT(A), the Assessee again produced all the relevant evidence including confirmation letters from the parties, ITRs, bank statements, etc. 7. By the order dated 17th January 2013, the CIT(A) came to the following conclusions: a. In four of the cases of the loan creditors, the return of income was below Rs. 10 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been borrowed. It was difficult to imagine that the said unsecured loans could have been given on genuine grounds without the payment of interest. 8. The CIT(A), therefore, concluded that the Assessee was not in a position to establish the credit worthiness of the six parties to the extent that they had any regular source of income or capability for advancing the loans. Further the circumstances indicated that the bank accounts of these parties were utilised only to justify the loans advanced to the Assessee. It was accordingly concluded by the CIT (A) that the Assessee had not discharged the onus of establishing the creditworthiness of the lenders. 9. Aggrieved by the above order, the Assessee went before the ITAT by filing ITA No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counts of the lenders, the burden shifted to the Revenue to show that the amounts deposited in the accounts of the lenders, in fact, came from the Assessee. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 329 (Delhi). 11. Having considered the above submissions, the Court is not persuaded to disagree with the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the ITAT that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Assessee has not been able to discharge the initial onus of proving the creditworthiness of the six lenders. The mere fact that the Assessee had produced the bank account statements of the six lending parties would not per se relieve it of th....