TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of film rights, financing and investment activities. The original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act for the year under consideration determining total income at Rs. 7,07,384/-. The AO received information that M/s Bhanwarlal Jain Group was carrying activities of providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus loans and advances and it was noticed that the assessee has also taken loans from the above said group. Hence the AO reopened the assessment of the year under consideration by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. It was noticed that the assessee has received loan of Rs. 100.00 lakhs and Rs. 150.00 lakhs respectively from M/s A2 Jewels and M/s Daksh Diamonds ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onus placed upon the assessee is discharged, if he proves the three main ingredients viz., (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) the genuineness of the transaction and (iii) genuineness of transactions. (a) CIT Vs. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014)(361 ITR 481)(Gau) (b) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P Ltd (159 ITR 78)(SC) (c) CIT Vs. Varinderrawley (2014)(366 ITR 232)(P & H) (d) Namichand Kothari Vs. CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) (e) CIT Vs. Smt. Sushiladevi Khdaria (2009)(319 ITR ....) (f) ITO vs. Anant Shelters (P) Ltd (2012)(51 SOT 234) 5. The Ld CIT(A) also took support of decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rushabh Enterprises vs. ACIT (W.P No.167 of 2015), wherein the Hon'ble High Court had dismissed the reop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mum/2009 and in the case of Shaf Broadcast P Ltd vs. ACIT (ITA No.1819/Mum/2012), wherein the Tribunal has quashed the reopening of assessment, since the reopening was based on statements of Mr. Mukesh Choksi and Mr. I C Choksi. He observed that identical view has been taken by Delhi bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Nipun Builders & Developers P Ltd (ITA No.557/Del/2010). The Ld CIT(A) also relied upon decision rendered by the Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Jafferali K Rattonsey vs. DCIT (ITA 5068/Mum/2009), wherein it was held that mere statement given by a person cannot be a deciding factor for rejecting the genuineness of purchase of shares by the assessee specially when all other supporting evidences filed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that the assessee has discharged the initial onus placed upon it u/s 68 of the Act by proving the identity of the creditors, credit worthiness of the creditors and genuineness of transactions. He submitted that these creditors have also got loans from others, which were used to advance loans to the assessee. He submitted that the financial statements of these parties prove the availability of funds with both the creditors. He further submitted that these loans have been repaid in the subsequent years through banking channels. The Ld A.R submitted that the AO has issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to these two creditors and they have duly responded to the notices and have confirmed the loan transactions entered with the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee has furnished the financial statements of these two creditors. The contention of the revenue is that the capital balance and the profit disclosed by them are low. Accordingly it was contended that these two concerns could not have given such kind of huge amounts as loan. However, in our view, both of them are not determinative factors. What is required to be seen is whether the creditor could prove the availability of funds with it or not. A perusal of the financial statements furnished by both the creditors would show that the loans given to the assessee have been duly disclosed and further these creditors were having sources by way of loans taken by them from others. Further both the concerns were carrying of business having hug....