TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ash credit u/s 69A of the IT Act , inspite of the fact that, the loan /advance obtained by the appellant by crossed account payee cheques and the said loan/advance were supported with confirmation and the identity of the creditors has been proved through Tax PAN No held by the creditors. Therefore the said additions made by AO is not justified and the same may please be deleted. 2. The LD AO has wrongly made the above said addition ignoring the confirmation and ignoring facts that identity of creditors has been proved through their income tax PAN no and creditors are financially sound. 3. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case the LD ITO ward 1 Ahmednagar has wrongly charged interest of Rs.9,49,212/- u/s 234A/B of IT Act consequent to the above said wrong addition and therefore the interest may please be deleted. 4. The appellant may please be allowed to ADD/Alter/Amend any ground of appeal." 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under :- The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of Builders, Promoters and Real Estate. No Return of Income was filed for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13. The Assessing Officer received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt in the case of CIT vs. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd., 208 ITR 465 (Cal.) and CIT vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd., 187 ITR 596 (Cal.). Invoking the doctrine of human probabilities and taking cognizance of surroundings circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 8. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal contending inter-alia that the loans and advances in question were obtained by crossed account payee cheques supported by the confirmation letters and identity of the creditors has been proved by filing the PAN Card etc. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 9. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. On the date of hearing, a petition for adjournment was moved in the name of Saideep, Healthcare of Research Pvt. Ltd. Viraj Estate, Yashwant Colony, Near DSP Chowk, Ahmednagar-414003, the image of photocopy of the said petition is reproduced herein below :- "To, Hon'ble ITAT, A-Bench, Pune ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n received and the alleged escapement of income." 12. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submits that the assessment order passed in the case of Mr. Bhawarlal M. Jain, who is the provider of bogus accommodation entries to the appellant was confirmed by "B" Bench of Mumbai, ITAT on 06.08.2021 taking cognizance of the statement on oath of the said person u/s 132(4), wherein, he had categorically admitted that he was engaged in providing accommodation entries through 17 benamies concerns operated and controlled by said Bhawarlal M. Jain. The appellant is one of such beneficiaries of entries provided by said Bhawarlal M. Jain 13. We heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. The issue that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether or not in the facts of the case the loans and advances credited in the books of the appellant company are genuine. The Assessing Officer, on receipt of the information from the DIT (Inv.)-II, Mumbai that the appellant is beneficiary of the accommodation entries of bogus loans and advances from one Mr. Bhawarlal Jain Group formed an opinion that the income had escaped assessment to tax and issued a notice u/s 148 as the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thiness, then the genuineness of the transaction would not be established. In such a case, the assessee would not have discharged the primary onus contemplated by Section 68 of the Act." 15. From the facts of the present case, which are set out in the assessment order, it would be clear that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus casts upon him to prove the genuineness of the transactions, identity of the creditors and creditworthiness of the creditors/investors who should have financial capacity to make the advance in question to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Even the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. NDR Promoters (P.) Ltd., 410 ITR 379 (Delhi), wherein, it was held that when the Assessing Officer was made addition u/s 68 in respect of the amount received as share capital of several companies which was in-fact maintained/operated by one person who is indulged in providing the accommodation entries are held to be justified. Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in collateral proceedings." 21. In the said case it was clearly stated that the courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and one who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. A person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. A litigant who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If a vital document is withheld in order to gain advantage on the other side he would be guilty of playing fraud on court as well as on the opposite party. 22. In Smt. Shrist Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Brothers [AIR 1992 SC 1555] it has been opined that fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal [AIR 2002 SC 33], Ram Preeti Yadav v. U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and other [(2003) 8 SC 311] and Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others [(2003) 8 SCC 319]. 23. In State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. T. Suryachandra Rao [AIR 2005 SC 3110] after refe....