TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax (Appeal) acceptable/ maintainable? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Kolkata has answered in favour of the assessee regarding addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 unsecured loan and interest there off? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on question of law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Kolkata has dismissed appeal of the revenue on addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 unsecured loan and interest there of whereas per various case laws the onus is on the assessee to establish the existence, genuineness and creditworthiness of the new loan introduced, which he has failed to satisfy the Assessing Officer? 2. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment under consideration, AY 2015-16 on 28.09.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 7,35,35,310/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) was issued and thereafter notice under Section 142(2) was issued and the case was discussed with the authorized representative of the assessee. The assessee is a firm involved in the business of trading/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tails, balance-sheet does not absolve the assessee from their responsibilities of proving the transaction and that the transactions are in the nature of tax evasion by money laundering. With regard to the lender companies which in the opinion of the Assessing Officer were "paper companies", the Assessing Officer stated that it has to be seen whether the identity and the creditworthiness of the companies are real whether the transactions were genuine and whether the transactions had been carried out at arm's length. The Assessing Officer proceeded to examine the documents produced by the assessee held that on perusal of the balance-sheet of the company it revealed that they hardly have any fixed assets and they are engaged in rotating money and further alleged that the operators of such bogus companies ensure that money is laundered through one Ashish Kumar Agarwal who was stated to be an entry operator from whom statement was rendered. After referring to the said statement, the Assessing Officer concludes that the assessee has received an unexplained loan by routing unaccounted money. The Assessing Officer placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT Versus Nipun Builders and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 4.5 crores and pay interest of Rs. 74 lakhs thereon. Further the TDS which has been deducted by the assessee has not been disputed by the department which will go to indicate their statutory compliance. Further, reliance was placed on the decision in Nipun Builders and Developers by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable as it is an admitted fact that the notices under Section 133(6) were duly served on the companies and they have also sent their reply as called for in the said notices. By placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Khader Khan & Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC), it was contended that a statement recorded under Section 133A of the Act is not admissible in law. For the proposition that there has been violation of principles of natural justice, an opportunity of cross-examination was not given. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timbers Finance Versus CCE CA No. 4228 of 2006 (SC). Further, the assessee stated that nowhere the assessee has been referred to in the statement given by Shri Ashish Kumar Agarwal and, therefore, making an addition based on such statement is illegal. Further it was cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kundalia, learned Senior Standing Counsel along with Mr. Anurag Roy, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Avratosh Mazumder, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Avra Mazumder and Mr. Md. Bilwal Hossain, learned Advocates for the respondents. 4. Before we examine the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal and consider whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal we need to take note of Section 68 of the Act. This provision deals with cash credits. It states that 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. The crucial words in the said provision are "assessee offers no explanation". This would mean where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regard the amount credited in the books maintained by the assessee. No doubt the Income Tax Act places the burden of proof on the tax payer. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reply dated 22.12.2017.The documents annexed to the reply were classified under 3 categories namely: to establish the identity of the lender, to prove the genuineness of the transactions and to establish the creditworthiness of the lender. The assessing officer has brushed aside these documents and in a very casual manner has stated that mere filing PAN details, balance sheet does not absolve the assessee from his responsibility of proving the nature of transaction. There is no discussion by the assessing officer on the correctness of the stand taken by the assessee. Thus, going by the records placed by the assessee, it could be safely held that the assessee has discharged his initial burden and the burden shifts on the assessing officer to enquire further into the matter which he failed to do. In more than one place the assessing officer used the expression "money laundering." We find such usage to be uncalled for as the allegations of money laundering is a very serious allegations and the effect of a case of money laundering under the relevant Act is markedly different. Therefore, the assessing officer should have desisted from using such expression when it was never the case tha....