TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 780
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Act vide assessment order dated 20.01.2009. Against the assessment order dated 20.1.2009, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 30.6.2010 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 30.6.2010, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR relied upon order passed by the AO and the reiterated the contention raised in the grounds of appeal of the Revenue and requested that appeal of the Revenue may be allowed. 4. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with provisions of law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue may be dismissed. In support of his contention, he filed a Paper Book containing pages 1-58, to substantiate its case. 5. We have heard both the parties especially the orders of the authorities below alongwith the paper book. We have gone through the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and found that Ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In such a case there is, prima facie, evidence against the assessee, viz., the receipt of money, and if he fails to rebut the said evidence, it can be used against him by holding that it was a receipt of an income nature." 5.7 In A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is for the assessee to prove the sources and the nature' of the receipts appearing in its books of account. The department has to prove neither the source nor the nature of the receipts, as has been held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Seth Kalekhan Mahomed Hanif v. ClT [1958] 34 ITR 669 which decision has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalekhan Mohammad Hanifv. CIT [1963] 50 ITR l. The same principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194, by Calcutta High Court in Shankar Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689, C. Kant & Co. v. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 63, Oriental Wire Industries (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 688, Prak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rved that the assessee has duly discharged its onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the persons and genuineness of the transactions by furnishing the confirmation letters, assessment particulars including PAN and copy of I.T. return, balance-sheet & P&L account, Bank statement to show that the payments have been made through banking channels in respect of the following loan creditors:- Amount (in Rupees) i) M/s Changia Steel Pvt Ltd 15,00,000/- ii) M/s Nishant Finvest Pvt Ltd 15,00,000/- iii) M/s Shree Dinanath Lohariwala Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd 15,00,000/- iv) M/s Shriniwas Leasing & Finance Pvt Ltd 30,00,000/- v) M/s Sparrow Marketing Pvt Ltd 44,00,000/-- vi) M/s Shekhawati Finance Pvt. Ltd. 15,00,000/- vii) M/s Dreamland Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 30,00,000/- viii) M/s Ganga Infin Pvt. Ltd. 25,00,000/- ix) M/s Meghdoot Express Pvt. Ltd. 15,00,000/- x) M/s Garg Finvest Pvt. Ltd. 15,00,000/- xi) Sh. Surjeet Multanik alias Bawa 55,00,000/- Total 2,74,00,000/- 5.10 It is noted that the identity of the aforementioned loan creditors has been established by submitting their permanent account number(PAN) and incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt and the genuineness of the transaction has been discharged by the appellant in respect of loan advanced by Shri Surjeet Multani alias Bawa. 5.12 When the assessee had filed the confirmation letters giving the details such as permanent account number (PAN), copies of Income tax return, balance sheet and profit & loss account and copies of bank statements, the primary onus of proof has been discharged by it. However, the A.O. cannot be precluded from further investigation for the purpose of finding the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors. There is no indication in the assessment order or in the remand report that the A.O. has made any enquiry from (a) the banks from where the cheques (corresponding to the loans) were issued and cleared; (b) the Assessing Officers concerned of the loan creditors, for the verification of the loans before arriving at the conclusion that they remained unexplained. There is no evidence or material to even suggest, as pointed out on behalf of the assessee, that the money directly or indirectly emanated from the assessee so that it could be said that the assessee's own money was brought back in the guise of loan. The pr....