TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ans. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the first appellate authority vide his order dated 05.02.2010 enhanced the addition to Rs. 7,00,000/-. The assessee took the matter before the ITAT Delhi 'F' Bench and the Tribunal by order dated 03.11.2010 set aside the matter and restore it back to the file of the AO for making de novo assessment after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In pursuance to the direction of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer again conducted reassessment proceeding and passed an ex-parte order making an addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of loans from Smt. Radha Goyal and Shri Om Prakash Gupta sons (HUF). 4. Aggrieved assessee again filed an appeal before the CIT(A), which was also dismissed by passing the impugned order. Now, the empty handed assessee is before this Tribunal in the second round of litigation with this second appeal raising sole ground as reproduced hereinabove. 5. We have heard the arguments on both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. The Ld. counsel of the assessee reiterating its arguments before the authorities below submitted that the assessee filed confirmation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n by showing money in his books either by account payee cheque or by draft or by any other mode, allowing confirmations and bank records then the onus to prove that the impugned loans are not genuine, onus shift to the Revenue. Ld. counsel further pointed out that in the aforesaid circumstances of the case, the assessee discharged his onus but the Assessing Officer rejected the entire sustainable evidence of the assessee on the threshold without making any further enquiry from the assessment record of the respective creditors and proceeded to make the impugned addition, which cannot be held as in accordance with law. 8. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) pointed out that during the reassessment proceedings, assessee did not file any confirmation, bank account and other relevant evidences in support of impugned loans and the summons were issued to the creditors on 25.03.2011 and to their legal heirs on 14.12.2011 but there was no compliance of these summons. The Ld. DR supporting the action of the AO submitted that in this situation AO had no option to make addition u/s 68 of the Act when the assessee failed to prove creditworthiness of the respective creditors and genuineness ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....undersigned again to issue the summons is a very strange submission of the appellant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the appellant has failed to discharge its onus cast upon him u/s 68 to prove the identity of the creditor, credit worthiness of creditor and genuineness of transaction to the satisfaction of the AO. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the AO. The addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- made u/s 68 by the AO is hereby confirmed. Ground of appeal is rejected." 9. In view of above, from the operative part of the assessment order as well as impugned order of the CIT(A) as reproduced hereinabove, we note that the authorities below mainly stressed on the personal attendance of the said creditors Smt. Radha Goyal and Shri Om Prakash Gupta and the Ld. DR has not disputed this fact that these creditors had died before completion of reassessment proceedings on 29.12.2011. In this situation, when the notices issued by the AO to the legal heirs of the said creditors remained uncomplied. The assessee cannot be held at fault. In this situation, the Assessing Officer was bound to consider confirmations, copies of the bank records of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and creditworthiness of the respective creditors Smt. Radha Goyal and Shri Om Prakash Gupta (HUF) which were rejected at the threshold without any consideration by the authorities below, without any further verification from the respective assessment records of the alleged creditors, whereas the assessee submitted their PAN numbers, addresses and details of their assessment ward and AO during reassessment proceeding. In this situation, we respectfully follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish Investment P. Ltd. (supra) wherein their lordship held that the assessee submits the identity of the creditors by either furnishing PAN number of Income Tax assessment number and other relevant details showing genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors and money in the books of accounts of the assessee has been entered through banking channel, then the onus of proof would shift to the Revenue. 13. In the present case, in view of above noted facts and circumstances and contains of documents submitted by the assessee, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee discharge his onus establishing ....