TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the direction to verify the source of investment of Rs. 4,25,000/-. The assessee has given loan of Rs. 7,50,000/- to M/s. R.G. Consultants Pvt. Ltd. during the assessment year 2009-2010 under appeal. Notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee, to which, assessee submitted that the return already filed originally may be treated as return filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee is an individual and declared the income from salary, income from house property and income from other sources. The A.O. on perusal of details noted that assessee has given loan of Rs. 7,50,000/- to M/s. R.G. Consultants Pvt. Ltd. by cheque drawn on Bank Account maintained with Slandered Charted Bank. Prior to issue of cheque of Rs. 7,50,000/-, there was credit of Rs. 3,50,000/ and Rs. 4,00,000/ in the Bank Account of the assessee. The assessee filed cash flow statement showing opening balance of Rs. 5,55,000/-. The assessee was asked to explain the source of the above deposits in the Bank Account. The assessee filed documentary evidences on record in support of the contention. The A.O, however, noted that the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itworthiness of the Investor. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. In the case of wife of assessee. Smt. Meena Nayyar vs., ITO (supra), the ITAT, Delhi SMC Bench has considered the identical issue and deleted the similar addition. The Order of the Tribunal is reproduced as under : "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI 'SMC-I' BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4788/DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2009-10] SMT. MEENA NAYYAR, 2B/12, EAST PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI - 110 026 (PAN AAFPN7941Q) Vs. ITO, WARD 41(5), NEW DELHI - 2 [Appellant] [RESPONDENT] Assessee by: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Sh. C.P. Singh, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals-34], New Delhi dated 26.4.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 and raised as many as 08 grounds on legal issue as well as on merit. However, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has only argued the ground no. 7 on the merit and not argued the grounds on the legal issues no. 1 to 6, hence, the same are dismissed as such. Ground NO. 8 is general in nature, hence, do not require adjudication. For the sake of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.4.2019 has confirmed the addition in dispute by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the impugned order, assessee appealed before the Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- made by the AO on account of amount received in the bank account of the assessee treating the same as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in dispute by rejecting the detailed explanation and evidenced brought on record by the assessee to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders as well as the genuineness of the transaction. To support his aforesaid contention, he filed the written submissions as well as Paper Book containing pages 1-100 in which he has attached the various documentary evidence to support the case of the assessee and requested by considering the written submissions as well as the documentary evidences, the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) may please be deleted. 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. I have heard both the parties and peruse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s/non-existent entities. In the instant case, the AO had not made any dent on these lines. On the other hand the appellant has filed all the details and supporting documentary evidence to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of 1hese three unsecured loan parties. 16. Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT (A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, these ground raised by the revenue stands dismissed. " 5.1 It is also an undisputed fact that the amount has been received through proper banking channels and for establishing the aforesaid fact, the assessee had also submitted the copy of bank statements. By submitting the aforesaid evidences and explanations, in my view, the assessee has discharged his initial onus for disclosing the identity of the loan provider by submitting the copy of the passport, confirmations, copy of resident identity card of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts and circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal in this case accords with the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lovely Exports (supra) 8. The decision in this case is based on the peculiar facts which attract the ratio of Lovely Exports (supra). Where the assessee adduces evidence in support of the share application monies, it is open to the assessing officer to examine it and reject it on tenable grounds. In case he wishes to rely on the report of the investigation authorities, some meaningful enquiry ought to be conducted by him to establish a link between the assessee and the alleged hawala operators; such a link was shown to be present in the case of Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the revenue. We are therefore not to be understood to convey that in all cases of share capital added under section 68, the ratio of Lovely Exports (supra) is attracted, irrespective of the facts, evidence and material. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." 5.2. Thus where in a given case the assessee for his part produced the confirmations and identity proofs of Sh. Babu Jethani, which wo....