TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: During the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee took loans to the tune of Rs. 3,35,00,000/- and the parties from whom the loans were taken are the benami entities of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, whose group cases Search & Seizure operations as well as Survey operations were conducted on 03- 10-2013 by the Investigation wing, Mumbai. During the course of the search operation, it was found that the activities of the group were operated through several name lending dummy directors, partners/ proprietors of various concerns belonging to the native place of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain & family. The concerns were literally controlled, operated and managed by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and his family. This fact was admitted by those persons in the sworn statements recorded from them during the course of search operation and they have also admitted that they were made to the position by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain. On verification of the documents forwarded by the investigation wing, it was found that the assessee has taken accommodation entrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....faction of escaped income, which is bad in law. In the case of CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur 311 ITR 38 (Punjab and Haryana) the honorable court held that since assessing Officer had not examined and corroborated Information so received before recording his own satisfaction of escaped income and initiating reassessment Proceedings, it could be said that assessing officer had acted only on basis of suspicion. 9. On the basis of reasons recorded it seems that statement of any person was neither recorded by the A. O and not In the presence of the assessee hence the credibility of the statement is doubtful and suspicious. 10. Further a general confession by a person that all his transaction are bogus or that he has indulged only in bogus transactions cannot be basis for treating the assessee transaction as bogus and not real. This is more particularly so when the assessee has not been specifically named in the confession. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Merval Das (1976) 101ITR 427 (SC) the assessee had obtained a loan from a lender. The lender had given a confessional statement subsequently to the Income -Tax Department That he had only indulge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2) Andaman Timber Industries (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 vide order dated 02.09.2015); 3) KishinchandChellaram vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC); 4) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); 5) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); 6) Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj); 7) CIT vs. Smt. Sushiladevikhadaria [2009] 319 ITR (Bom); 8) ITO vs. Anant Shelters (P) Ltd. [2012] 51 SOT 234; 9) CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley [2014] 366 ITR 232 (P&H); 10) CIT vs. Jai Kumar Balkiwal [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Raj); 11) CIT vs. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 296 (Del); 12) CIT vs. Samtelcolor Ltd. 64 DTR 46; and 13) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 136 Taxmann 213 18. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded as under: 6.3.24 Hence, it is to be inferred that in a case where the assesse has supplied all possible information to the Assessing Officer to explain the credit transaction, he has satisfactorily discharged the burden cast on him and it would be for the revenue to prove that the transaction is not satisfactorily explained and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents having been satisfied, the impugned loans of Rs. 3,35,00,000/- have to be treated as explained satisfactorily and the Assessing Officer was wrong in having disregarded overwhelmingly supportive evidence. No cogent material was adduced by him, to show that loans were unexplained. Therefore, the impugned addition of Rs. 3,35,00,000/-, made in the Assessment Order, fails on several counts - (1) Evidence that is relied upon is totally inadequate; (2) Failure to make available incriminating material (reports, statements etc.) forming basis for action by the Assessing Officer; and, (3) failure to recognize the satisfactory nature of the explanation / evidence tendered by the appellant to explain identity of creditors, creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the loan transactions. Hence, the impugned addition of Rs. 3,35,00,000/- is hereby deleted. 19. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 20. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. The learned departmental representative relied upon the order's of the assessing officer. 21. Per Contra, the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee has given all th....