TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect in deleting the addition made by the AO, when the assessee had failed to discharge its primary onus under section. 68 of the I.T. Act. 3.The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 4. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set-aside and that of the assessing officer be restored." 3. The only issue raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 9,85,00,000/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's sister concern case in ITA No.3593/M/2019 AY. 2011-12 & ors. vide order dated 25.06.2020 wherein the case of the assessee under similar facts have been decided in favour of the assessee by the coordinate bench. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that the present appeal filed by the Revenue may kindly be dismissed following the said decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal. 5. The facts in brief are tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the AO beside submitting that Rs. 9,85,00,000/- were funded to the assessee under Joint Venture Agreement. The details of bank statements and details of collaterals etc were also supplied. The AO came to the conclusion that the assessee has routed its own money through non existent and shell companies and thus not satisfying the three ingredients as envisaged by the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The AO finally added the said loan of Rs. 9,85,00,000/- under section 68 by noting that assessee has failed to provide that even the basic details as called for vide notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act on various occasions and even the entity from whom the assessee had received money has not submitted any authentic details and information as sought from the said entity under section 133(6) excepting the confirmation and undated affidavit. According to the AO the assessee has failed to controvert the findings of investigation wing that Minaxi Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. is one of the paper companies and the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as huge funds were found to be transferred to the account of the assessee through Minaxi Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. The assessment was framed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use the provisions of section 68 of the I f Act The provisions of section 68 of the ST Act, 1961 before amendment (i.e. prior to AY 2013-14} are as under: Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. Perusal of these provisions divulges that there is an obligation on the part of the assessee to prove the identity genuineness and credit worthtness of the person from where the money is actually received. The above three ingredients -have been taken as basic parameters to be satisfied by the appellant. Further, under what circumstances the invocation of section 68 of the IT Act, 1961 can be resorted to a) When the assessee fails to prove the genuineness of the transaction that has entered into his books of account. b) When there is no satisfactory explanation provided on the part of the Assessee to the Assessing Officer with respect to the amount credited in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. Minaxi Suppliers Pvt. Ltd have given a sum of 9,85,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crore Eighty Five Lakhs Only) toward the Joint ventures for purchase of land. 5. That our company MINAXI SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD. has funded the sum of 9,85,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crore Twenty Lakhs Only) under Joint Venture with M/s. Supergold Properties Pvt. Ltd. having their address at Room No. 2, Munir Bashir Colony, Near Ghatkoper Police Station, Ghatkoper (West).. Mumbai: 400086 for acquiring the immovable property in Sindhdurg District Maharashtra. 6. That during the period 1/04/2010 to 31/03/2011 MINAXI SUPPLIERS PVT LTD given sum of 9,85,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crore Eighty. Five Lakhs Only) through RTGS to Supergold Properties Pvt. Ltd. Minaxi Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. had transferred the money in IDBI Bank, Ghatkoper (East) Branch, Mumbai: 400077 vide their Current Account No.033102000005784 through RTGS. The details Cheque which are utilized for RTGS are as under: Name of the Bank & Branch Date Cheque Details Amount () Karnatka Bank 24th April, 2010 145978 1,00,00,000/- Karnatka Bank 30th April, 2010 145978 30,00,000/- Karnatka Bank 3ra May, 2010 145982 70,00,000/- Karnatka ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the instant case. Provisions of Sec 68 of the Act in the assessee to satisfy three ingredients namely, the proof regarding identity of the loan creditors, their creditworthiness to give the loan and the genuineness of the transaction as a whole. Initial burden of proof lies on the assessee. The basic precondition for Sec 68 of Income-tax Act, 1961 is that the assessee should file a valid confirmation. The confirmation must contain clear identity of the creditor and indicate complete details of transactions. As far as creditworthiness or financial strength and genuineness of the transaction of the creditor is concerned that can be proved by producing the bank statement of the creditor or copy of return of income and balance sheet, showing it had sufficient balance in its accounts to enable it to offer the loan. Once these documents are produced, "the assessee would have satisfactorily discharged the onus cast upon him. Thereafter, it is for the A.O. to scrutinise the same and in case he nurtures any doubt about the veracity of these documents, to probe the matter further. Reference is invited to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Himalaya Internat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO did not initiate any independent enquiry by issuing statutory notices/summons to the co-venture to verify the genuineness of the transactions. The reason may be that the assessee produced all the documents to the satisfaction of the AO and there is nothing that can be gathered by issuing notice u/s 133(6) or summons u/s 131 of the Act. It. is the settled law that no assessee can be cast upon with tax liability on the basis of presumption^ surmise and conjecture. The AO had a finding that the assessee did not produce copy of MOU or agreement undertaken by the assessee with MSPL. The addition has been made on the ground of genuineness and it is an undisputed fact that the assessee produced the documents which comply all the three ingredients of Sec 68 of the Act. When confirmation letter, financial statements and bank statements have been produced to prove the three ingredients of Sec 68 of the Act, no evidentiary value is attached to the copy of Joint venture agreement undertaken between the assessee and MSPL. The AO has also brought on record that the appellant failed to produce the Director of MSPL as his witness to prove the genuineness of the unsecured loan transaction. How....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cash deposits in the bank account of lender or in the bank account of the assessee during the relevant period, therefore, the allegation of funds brought back to the assessee through shell companies was not correct. It is also submitted there have been scrutiny assessment made in the case of MSPL for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 (AY 2011-12 was not under scrutiny as stated by the AR.) With regard to the interest not charged by the lender M/s. MSPL the assessee submitted that the lender in its affidavit has mentioned that the funds are given for pursuing the joint venture activity as mentioned in the submissions made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. In view of this the charging of interest by the lender does not arise. As regards the findings of the AO that the affidavit filed by M/s. MSPL was undated, the assessee submitted that in reply to notice u/s. 133(6) of I. T. Act MSPL has filed duly executed affidavit confirming the transaction with the assessee, was correctly verified by the Notary and dated. The above submission made by the assessee has been verified and found to be correct. With regard to proving identity, genuineness and creditworthines....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....44 (Pat) and Bombay High Court in the case of Shantilal Jain ITXA/687/2004 decided on31.7.2007: When loan is accepted through normal banking channels, the identity of the creditor stands proved. However, merely because amounts have been received through banking channels, it is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the credits. But the existence of a bank account of the creditor itself proves the existence of the creditor. The reason is very simple. Where the amounts are owned by the creditors, then even if it be presumed that the creditor had advanced the amounts from his undisclosed sources, still it would become the income of the said creditor and not that of the debtor (the assessee) iii. Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari V/s. CIT {2003} 264 ITR 254 (Gau.):The assessee cannot be called upon to prove the source-of-source. iv. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Arunanda Textiles P. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 116 (Kar.): Where the assessee has submitted confirmations & affidavits from the creditors, the onus is not on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors. v. Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uired to be inserted. It follows that where the proviso doesn't apply, the sec.68 does not put the burden on the assessee to prove the source-of-source. viii. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s. Daulat Ram Rawaltmull 87 ITR 349 (SC): lt is not the business of the assessee to find out the source of the money of his creditors. ix. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 (SC): It is also possible that a creditor may have advanced funds from out of his exempted income. For eg. If the creditor has agricultural income which is exempt, then merely because the creditor is not assessed to tax, it does not follow that the credits are assessee's income." During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has given further submissions relying on and citing the case laws decided by Hon'ble Courts which are applicable to the facts of the assessee's case. The gist of certain cases submitted by the assessee is as under: 1. Dy. CIT-CC7{2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, (ITA: 1448, 1449 & 1467/Mum/2017) 'I' Bench, Order dated 05.10.2018 for A.Y.2013 -14, 2011-12 & 2010-11: In the above case the Hon'ble Mem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... our considered view the facts of the assessee case are squarely covered by the ratio (aid down in the decisions referred to above. We , therefore, in view of our observations and the ratio laid down by the various decisions are inclined to set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to delete the additions of Rs. 1,29,04,231/-. Since we have decided the issue of addition u/s 68 in favour of the assessee, the addition as sustained by the Id CIT{A) u/s 69C of the Act of Rs. 3, 45,0007- is also ordered to be deleted. In result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. In remaining appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 the grounds taken by the assessee are same excepts figures and the loan creditors and hence the decision taken in ITA No.1071/Mum/2017 would, mutatis mutandis, apply to these appeals as well and hence these appeals are allowed as indicated above. ITA No.4946/Mum/2016 for A.Y.2012-13 Since, we have decided the appeals of the assessee for the assessment year 2008- 09 to 201 0-1 1 in favour of the assessee and the grounds taken by the revenue in A.Y.2012-13 are same with respect to accommodation entries from the same group. Since we ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are capital received from companies controlled and operated by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, and after considering relevant facts and also by relied upon various judicial precedents held that once, assessee filed necessary evidences to prove identity, genuineness of transactions and also filed necessary documents to prove capacity of the investors, then the AO cannot make additions only on the basis of information received from third parties. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under-Coming to the case laws relied upon by the Ld DR. The Ld. DR has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pawan Kumar M Sanghvi vs ITO (supra). We find that the Hon'ble Gujarat high Court, while affirming, the findings of the ITAT, came to the conclusion that when, the AO was specifically asked the assessee to produce the parties for verification, the assessee has failed to produce said parties for verification. Therefore, impugned amount was rightly brought to tax u/s 68 of the Act. We further noted that the Ld. DR has relied upon the decision ITA No.2969/Mum/2017 Agarwal Cloth Agency Pvt .Ltd. transactions and creditworthiness of the parties In this case, on p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd supporting documentary evidence viz. (i) copies of the returns of the lender companies; (ii) copies of their audited financial statements; (iii) copies of the bank accounts of the lender companies; and (iv) the 'affidavits' of the principle officers of the lender companies, wherein they had confirmed the loan transactions. Further, on a perusal of the bank accounts of the aforementioned lender companies, all of which we find were being assessed to income tax therein revealed that there was no immediate cash deposits intheir respective bank accounts in order to facilitate advancing of the loans to the assessee In nutshell it is neither the case of the revenue, nor a fact borne from the records, that the assessee had routed his own money in the garb of the unsecured loans raised from the aforementioned parties. As observed by the CIT(A), the assessee had also deducted tax at source at the time of payment/crediting of the interest on the loans raised from the aforementioned companies. Accordingly, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are of a strong conviction that the assessee had sufficiently discharged the 'onus' that was cast upon him as regards proving th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as accommodation entries. We are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the aforesaid view so arrived at by the A.O. In fact, a perusal of the assessment order reveals as if the A.O was framing the assessment in the case of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, and not in the case of the assessee. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position, we find, that the CIT(A) observing that as the assessee had duly discharged the ,,onus" that was cast upon him under Sec. 68 for proving the authenticity of the loan transactions, therefore, in the absence of any 'material' placed on record by the A.O to dislodge the said duly substantiated claim of the assessee, there was no occasion for him to have to re-characterised the loans raised by the assessee as accommodation entries. 7. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-17, Jhandewalan, New Delhi v. Shyam Indus Power Solutions (P.) Ltd., [2018] 90 taxmann.com 424 (Delhi - Trib.). Assessee had furnished names and addresses of share applicants, their PAN and confirmation with their bank account and Income-tax returns - Moreover, Assessing Officer had not at all carried out any investigation to show that those comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vity or their assessment history. The similar information should have been obtained from the bankers of the company with respect to the beneficiaries, the account operating instructions, and authorities of those accounts along with copies of the bank account of these parties since the date of opening of accounts. The details from bankers should also have been obtained with respect to the unusual transactions in the account of the investors as per F & U Ind wing as Id AO has alleged that the investors have high value transactions. The above information so collected and on examination of director or major shareholder of the investor/lenders company, the Id Assessing Officer should have formed his opinion about the existence of those companies and motive behind such companies. After framing the prima facie opinion, he must exercise vast powers available with him under the Income Tax Act with the Assessing Officer of those companies to investigate the correct facts then should have placed before the assessee to rebut it. Strangely, none of the above exercise has been carried out by the Assessing Officer. The inspector's report relied upon the by the Id AO was not related to the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nova promoters and Finlease (p.) Ltd. (Supra) relied upon by the Ld. Assessing officer, Id CIT DR as well as by the assessee. We have already decided the issue in the present appeal relying on the para Nos. 34 -39 of that particular decision. In that particular case before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, there was a letter from the director of Income Tax (Investigation), which furnished detailed information regarding entry operators and accommodation providers According to that letter, the Ld. AO noted that there were 16 entry operators who had given accommodation entries to several persons of which the assessee was also one of them. The Ld Assessing Officer also issued summons two persons and the AO also issued summons to some other companies. There was no response to those summons, which were served and many of them had been returned unserved. The Ld. Assessing Officer further sent an inspector who reported that no such person or company was available or existing at the address to which summons were issued In that particular case, the Ld. assessing officer asked assessee to produce the persons and companies from whom it had received share application money which was also not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... enquiry letters were issued under section 133 (6) to the investors. The investor did not respond to the notice and confirmation was also not submitted. In that particular case also the addition is required to be made only in case of investor whose particulars could not be verified and who did not respond to notices. In the present case no such information was collected by the assessing officer and no such enquiry letters were sent. (e) The next decision relied upon is Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd (Supra) wherein, the additions were upheld even the address and PAN no were not provided and in some of the depositors there is immediate withdrawal of money was found- In that particular the Hon'ble High Court drew obvious inference that the assessee had intentionally tried to block and obstruct inquiries knowing the nature of the transactions. In that particular case summons were also issued which remain uncomplied with. The present case is complete lack of inquiry/investigation on the investment made. (f) The next decision relied upon was in case of CIT V. MAF Academy (P.) Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 377/244 Taxman 212 (Maq.)/361 ITR 258 where the assessee a private limited company ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payment, bank statement showing cheque no and transfer of funds to the assessee as well as copies of the balance sheet etc. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court noted that the AO has strangely failed to conduct any scrutiny of documents rest contended by placing merely reliance on the report of Investigation Wing which Hon'ble High Court remarked as spectacular disregard to an AO's duties which revenue seeks to inflict upon the assessee. Similarly in the case before us even there is no report of Investigation Wing and assessee has furnished complete information as could have been submitted by it the Id Assessing Officer has failed to conduct any scrutiny of such documents or further inquiry from external source in any manner, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee We also draw support from another decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT V. Oriental International Co (P ) Ltd IT Appeal No. 9 of 2018 dated 08/01/2018 wherein, the High Court has held that if the AO were to conduct his task diligently he ought to have at least sought the material by way of inquiry to discern the fact about the source of the money. In the absence of any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not based on any evidence but only presumption. The lender is a corporate entity. It is maintaining proper Books of accounts. These books of accounts are subjected to Statutory Audit by Independent Auditors. The Audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss accounts are duty filed with Income Tax Department and Registrar of Companies and are available In public domain. The above, as submitted by the assessee goes to prove the financial strength of the lender company. It is also explained that "It is not necessary for any investor to maintain very high bank balance. In the case of companies, they are required to maintain current accounts that yield no interest, it will therefore be imprudent for any company to keep large balances in their bank accounts." In view of the above discussion and material available on record. I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has fully discharged the onus cast upon him u/s. 68 of the Act. The following decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT and High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court are relied: Nextgen Construction Pvt. Ltd. CIT(A)-22/ACIT-14(2)(3)/IT-302/2016-17 of dated 28/02/2019 in case of Goldcity Properties Pvt. Ltd. ITAT Mumbai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with their bank account and Income-tax returns - Moreover, Assessing Officer had not at all carried out any investigation to show that those companies did not exist but were paper company; they were not having worth of investing and transaction lacked genuinity - Further investigation wing report was not shown to assessee - Whether, thus, assessee had discharged initial onus cast upon him under section 68 and no addition was called for - Held, yes [Para 35] [In favour of assessee]. 4. CIT VS. Gagandeep Infrastructure ITA No. 1613 of 2014 (Bom.) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom) the Hon'ble Court observed that Proviso inserted to section 68 w.e.f. 01-04-2013 is considered to be prospective in nature and applicable from A. Y. 2013-14 onwards. Therefore, we are of the view that no addition can be made u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of share capital and share application money or share premium before insertion of Proviso to section 68 if the source of source is not explained by the assessee. 5. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 (SC): It i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit. From the above factual position and the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts and Hon'ble ITAT, on this subject it is concluded that a transaction which is supported by documentary evidences could not be treated as bogus or non-genuine merely on the basis of doubts raised regarding the same. There is no evidence brought on record and mentioned in the assessment order to prove the conclusions drawn by the AO The outcome of enquiry carried out in the case of Kolkatta based entities and the conclusions drawn therein cannot be applied ipso facto and in a sweeping manner to all other cases who have entered into transactions during that period without making any enquiry or investigation to examine the genuineness of the particular transaction which is under suspicion. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, in my opinion, the 'appellant has submitted sufficient evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lender and also the genuineness of the transactions during the year und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elow thereby proving all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act and thus upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) as being speaking, reasoned and correct one. The said operative part of the order is reproduced as under for the sake of ready reference: "5.1 Upon due consideration of rival submissions and material on record, we find that as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where any sum is found credited in the assessee's books and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation furnished is found to be unsatisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to Income-Tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. A proviso has been inserted to the said section by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01/04/2013 to provide that where the assessee is a company and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium etc., the explanation furnished by the assessee shall be deemed to be not satisfactory unless the person in whose name such credit is recorded also offers an explanation about nature and source of sum so credited and such explanation is found to be satisfactory. However, this pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Special Leave petition was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported at 107 Taxmann.com 85. Similar is the position of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in Pr. CIT V/s Himachal Fibers Ltd. [98 Taxmann.com 72] against which revenue's Special Leave Petition was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported at 98 Taxmann.com 173. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Pr. CIT V/s Chain House International Pvt. Ltd. [98 Taxmann.com 47] against which revenue's Special Leave Petition has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18/02/2019 which is reported at 103 Taxmann.com 435. Similar is the recent decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT V/s Ami Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 1231 of 2017, dated 29/01/2020) which has been rendered after considering the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision titled as Pr.CIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. [412 ITR 161]. 5.3 Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal position, we find that the assessee, in support of the stated transactions, furnished following documentary evidences with respect to M/s MSPL during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id fact has already been noted by us in preceding para 3.8 of the order. 5.6 The Ld.CIT-DR cited the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT V/s Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd. (367 ITR 306 25/08/2014). However, we find the same to be factually distinguishable since in that case, the assessment order specifically records that there were huge regular cash deposits and thereafter pay order / cheques were issued to the respondent assessee. The same is not the case here since Ld. AO records a fact that loans were sourced by liquidating the unquoted investments. 5.7 The case law of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [2015 56 Taxmann.com 286], would also not apply since upon perusal of para-41 of the judgment, it is quite discernible that the assessee had come up with the proof of identity of some of the entities in question but failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Therefore, the matter was set aside by Hon'ble Court to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration / adjudication. The same is not the case here since the assessee has filed sufficient documentary evidence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....materials on record. 13. Section 68 of the Act deals with cash credits. As per Section 68, where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. Simply put, the section provides that if there is any cash credit disclosed by the assessee in his return of income for the previous year under consideration and the assessee offers no explanation for the same or if the assessee offers explanation which the Assessing Officer finds to be not satisfactory, then the said amount is to be added to the income of the assessee to be charged to income tax for the corresponding assessment year. 14. Section 68 of the Act has received considerable judicial attention through various pronouncements of the Courts. It is now well settled that under Section 68 of the Act, the assessee is required to prove identity of the creditor; genuineness of the transaction; and credit worthiness of the cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that there was no requirement under Section 68 of the Act to explain source of source. It was not necessary that share application money should be invested out of taxable income only. It may be brought out of borrowed funds. It was further held that nonresponding to notice would not ipso facto mean that the creditors had no credit worthiness. In such circumstances, the first appellate authority held that where all material evidence in support of explanation of credits in terms of identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors were available, without any infirmity in such evidence and the explanation required under Section 68 of the Act having been discharged, Assessing Officer was not justified in making the additions. Therefore, the additions were deleted. 19. In appeal, Tribunal noted that before the Assessing Officer, assessee had submitted the following documents of the three creditors: a) PAN number of the companies; b) Copies of Income Tax return filed by these three companies for assessment year 2010- 11; c) Confirmation Letter in respect of share application money paid by them; and d) Copy of Bank Statement through which cheques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Accordingly, no addition can be made u/s.68 of the Act. In view of above reasoned factual finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same." 21. From the above, it is seen that identity of the creditors were not in doubt. Assessee had furnished PAN, copies of the income tax returns of the creditors as well as copy of bank accounts of the three creditors in which the share application money was deposited in order to prove genuineness of the transactions. In so far credit worthiness of the creditors were concerned, Tribunal recorded that bank accounts of the creditors showed that the creditors had funds to make payments for share application money and in this regard, resolutions were also passed by the Board of Directors of the three creditors. Though, assessee was not required to prove source of the source, nonetheless, Tribunal took the view that Assessing Officer had made inquiries through the investigation wing of the department at Kolkata and collected all the materials which proved source of the source. 22. In NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd (supra), the Assessing Officer had made independent and detailed inquiry including survey of the investor companies....