TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 994
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in law by deleting the addition made by the AO on account of bogus unsecured loans u/s 68 of the I.T. Act? 3. The respondent is engaged in the business of builders and developers. It filed its return of the income for the subject assessment year declaring income at Rs. 7.72 lakhs. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by order dated 26th December, 2011 under Section 143(3) of the Act determining the income at Rs. 3.40 crores. This enhancement of income was essentially on account of the fact that the respondent had taken unsecured loans from 90 persons. However, confirmations were filed only in respect 77 persons. This resulted in the Assessing Officer concluding that unsecured loans to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons were submitted only in the case of 77 parties and for the remaining 13 parties confirmation were not furnished during the assessment proceedings, that during the course of appellate proceedings of the remaining loan confirmation were filed along with other supporting documents that enquiries were conducted in a few cases, to be precise four in number are based on the statement given by those parties enquiries under section 142(2) of the Act, a survey action under section 133A of the IT Act was conducted on 01.12.2011 at the premise of DK by the DDIT (investigation), unit IX(3), Mumbai that his statement was also recorded, that in his statement he admitted that he had provided entries for loans in lieu of cash received from the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re concerned. The AO did not make any further inquiry. So, in our opinion, order of the FAA does not suffer from any legal infirmity. In case of remaining 14 (JVA and 13 creditors about whom the assessee filed details before the FAA) creditors the FAA had rightly held that it had failed to discharge the initial burden. In matters regarding cash credit, the onus of proof is not a static one - the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee. Amount appearing in the books of a/cs of the assessee is considered a proof against him. But, if it produces evidences about identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the lender onus of proof shifts again to the Revenue. In the matter before us, the FAAafter considering the remand report and reply o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 68 do not permit such action - on the basis of specific inquiry general additions cannot be made. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of R S Rathore (supra) has clearly laid down the said principle. No discrepancy was found by the AO in the documents filed by the assessee. Therefore, upholding the order of the FAA, we decide the first limb of the first ground of appeal against the AO. Second part of the first ground deals with deletion of interest amount of Rs. 40.37 lakhs. While deciding the appeal filed by the assessee, we have upheld the decision of the FAA in restricting the interest disallowance. Second ground of appeal is also decided against the AO." 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue relies upon....