TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....30.07.2010 declaring an income of Rs. 24,85,590/-. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS and notice under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee is deriving income by way of salary from private companies, house property, interest and dividend, etc. The AO, on the basis of AIR information, observed that the assessee has received huge unsecured loans to the tune of Rs. 2,66,35,000/- and accordingly the assessee was asked to confirm the loans with supporting copies of bank statements and other evidences to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders. The assessee filed before the AO the bank statements, ITRs, confirmations and PAN etc. After verifying various records and confirmations including the bank statements, the AO came to the conclusion that 3 parties, i.e. Labh Creations, Labdhi Corporation and Aditya Textiles have loaned the money out of their over draft account with CKP Co-operative Bank Ltd. and accordingly the assessee was given benefit of Rs. 38,85,000/- while the remaining loans aggregating to Rs. 2,27,50,000/- were treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and added....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s submitted that the assessee has filed all the evidences in the form of confirmation letters, banks statements, ITRs, Balance Sheets and copies of PAN cards in order to prove the identity and creditworthiness and genuineness of the lenders. In para 20(3) the CIT(A) doubted the transactions on the basis that the lender, namely Shri Pratap Dama, who deposed before the Department under Section 131 of the Act has not even a house to live but the learned A.R. strongly reverted the finding of the CIT(A) on the ground that the said person is only 38 years of old and is staying with his family. Another reason cited by the CIT(A) is that all the lenders were found to have been maintaining their accounts with Corporation Bank, Ghatkopar (W) Branch which was strongly rebutted by the learned A.R. by inviting the attention of the Bench to the fact that 16 lenders were from Ghatkopar and therefore it is quite likely that the said persons are having their accounts in Corporation Bank, Ghatkopar (W) Branch. The learned A.R. also advanced another arguments that in Mumbai a person residing in one locality whereas he is having bank account at different locality and that is not the basis for treating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aj) iv) Golden Remedies (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 28 SOT 260 (Del-Trib) v) Shri Rakesh Kumar Bharagava vs. ITO ITA No. 3432/Del/2015 dated 17.09.2015 vi) Umesh Electricals vs. ACIT 131 ITD 128 (Agra-Trib) (TM) vii) CIT vs. Kamaljeet Singh 147 Taxman 18 (All) viii) CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) The learned A.R. submitted that since the assessee has sufficiently discharged the onus cast upon it by filing all the documents as required by the AO and CIT(A) such as loan confirmation, copy of ITRs, bank statement, lenders PAN and address and therefore it is for the Revenue to carry out investigations. Finally the learned A.R. pleaded that in view of the facts of the assessee and the ratio laid down in various judicial decisions as cited above the case of the assessee may kindly be allowed. 7. The learned D.R., on the other hand, relied heavily on the orders of the Authorities below and submitted that both the Authorities below have unequivocally proved that the said loans were not genuine and were doubtful as the various attendant circumstances clearly pointed towards non genuineness and suspicious nature of the loans. The learned CIT(A) clearly brought out all the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n him, then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. 9. In the case of Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (supra) the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that once the assessee has established that he has taken money by way of account payee cheques from the lenders who are all income tax assessees whose PAN have been disclosed, the initial onus under Section 68 of the Act was discharged. Then it is the duty of the AO to find out whether in their respective returns they has shown existence of such amount of money and had further shown that those amount of money had been lent to the assessee. 10. Similarly in the case of Labchand Bohra (supra) the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that where the identity of the creditor have been established and they have confirmed the credits by making statements on oath and amount has been advanced by account payee cheque, the addition in respect of the entries cannot be sustained. 11. In the case of Golden Remedies P. Ltd. (supra) the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal held that where the loans were accepted through account payee cheques and had been repaid through account payee cheques, whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said loan were furnished before the Authorities below. The learned A.R. referred to pages 7,8,9 and 10 of the Paper Book, which comprised of confirmation letter from the lender, bank statement evidencing the payment by the lender. The learned A.R. submitted that the assessee has duly filed PAN, address and bank statement of the lender before the Authorities below and therefore it is for the Revenue authorities to carry out further investigations. It was further submitted by the learned A.R. that there was no cash deposit prior to the date of loan to the assessee by Smt. Rachana Ravan and therefore the conclusion of the Authorities below is totally fallacious and wrong that the loan taken by the assessee is not genuine. While referring to the copy of bank statement as attached in pages 9 and 10 the learned A.R. submitted that there is no entry in the bank statement which is of suspicious nature and the assessee has sufficient transactions in her bank accounts. Therefore to treat the loan as non genuine by the Revenue authorities is total wrong and devoid of merit. Finally the learned A.R. submitted before the Bench that the assessee has discharged his onus by filing all the necess....