TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1315
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the addition of Rs. 99,14,000/- made by A.O. on account of share capital as unexplained credit." The assessee has also filed a cross objection on the following grounds: 1. That the order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 04.12.2012 passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer is bad on facts and in law. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in upholding the disallowance of advances written off of Rs. 9,04,426/- made by the Ld. Assessing officer despite of the fact that the advances were given in ordinary course of business and the same is allowable either as trading loss under section 28 of the Act, or as a normal business loss under section 37 of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the details and noticed that the details neither prove the creditworthiness of the investors nor the genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer doubted the creditworthiness of the investors and noted that complete details of the investors have not been filed by the assessee. He also noted that all funds have been invested by the foreign companies/entities. Therefore, for want of incomplete details, the AO treated it as unexplained money and added to the income of the assessee. 3. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee has written off advances to the extent of Rs. 9,04,426/- during the year. The assessee was asked to justify the same. In response, the assessee submitted reply on 04.12.2012 which reads as under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvance as admitted by the assessee himself. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee. 4. In appeal, the assessee made detailed written submissions before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee and relying on assessee's own case in ITA No. 4932, 4933. 5390 and 5391/Del./2011, of coordinate Bench, allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect of addition made u/s. 68 of Rs. 99,14,000/-. He however, sustained the addition of Rs. 9,04,426/- as advance written off. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal for deletion of addition u/s. 68 and the assessee is in cross objection against sustenance of addition of Rs. 9,04,426/-. 5. The ld. DR relied on the order of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... compliance etc. clearly indicate the stand of the assessee. In our considered view, the plethora of the evidence filed by the assessee amounts to discharge of primary burden cast on the assessee in terms of sec.68 of the I.T. Act for identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of transaction." And "Taking into consideration of all the above, we find merit in the argument of the Id. Counsel for the assessee that the primary burden cast on the assessee was duly discharged. The issue of primary onus is to be weighed on the scale of evidence available on the record and the discharge of burden by the assessee is also to be decided on the basis of documents filed by the assessee and facts and circumstances of each case and o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arthed. In view of the above, and in view of the ruling of the Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case cited above, the addition of share capital of Rs. 99,14,000/- as unexplained credits is not legally sustainable and is deleted." The decision of ITAT has further been confirmed by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in ITA Nos. 547, 549 and 555/2013 dated 15.12.2016. There being no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, and for want of any contrary material on record, we have no reason to take a contrary view as adopted by the coordinate Bench in the above decision of assessee itself. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the ld. CIT(A) on this count. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue deserves ....