TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is bad in law and on facts. * That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,86,50,000/- representing unsecured loan creditors u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. * The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of proving credit-worthiness of lenders. * That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by not accepting the application under rule 46A for additional evidence. * That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts by stating that the assessee has not made any application u/r 46A for the admission of additional evidences. The assessee had duly filed an application u/r 46A dated 15/01/2019 for additional evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny application u/r 46A for the admission of additional evidences whereas the assessee had duly filed an application u/r 46A dated 15/01/2019 for admission and consideration of additional evidences along with the submissions and other evidences which the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider and thereby incorrectly alleged at para 1 at page 3 of the first appellate order that no application u/r 46A of the rules has been filed by the assessee. The ld. Sr. DR supported the observations of the ld.CIT(A) in para 8 of the first appellate order. However, he did not controvert the fact that the assessee duly filed application under Rule 46A of the Rules dated 15.01.2019 along with the submissions and other evidences wherein the assessee specifically stated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... transactions or with regard to the credit worthiness of the creditors, it would have discharged the onus which had shifted on the shoulders of the AO after the discharge of onus by the assessee; (ii) The AO has made a bald assertion/allegation without any basis and adverse positive material against the assessee that the assessee's own money earned from undisclosed sources on which tax has not been paid and brought into the books through unsecured loan provided by the so-called lenders named above cannot be held as sustainable in the eyes of law; (iii) The assessee had filed various conclusive and contemporary documents in respect of lenders viz., their PAN data, copy of income-tax return, bank statements, ledgers, confirm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A), then, the identity of the lender cannot be disputed and capacity and credit worthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction which was routed through banking channels cannot be doubted in any manner and, in such a situation, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee; and (vii) The initial onus has been discharged by the assessee as per the requirement of section 68 of the Act and it was shifted on to the shoulders of the AO and the AO as well as the ld.CIT(A), without dislodging and controverting the said documentary evidences filed by the assessee, proceeded to make addition in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act ignoring a very relevant fact that before initiation of assessment proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities below, he submitted that the assessee has failed to either submit relevant documentary evidence or the documents submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings were not complete and sufficient which itself proves that the assessee was not able to substantiate the genuineness of unsecured loan transaction and credit worthiness of the lenders. The ld. Sr. DR, again, drawing our attention to relevant part of the first appellate order, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition as the numerous opportunities were given to the assessee during the assessment proceedings which were not availed by the assessee. He further submitted that the assessee could not submit the documentary evidences to prove the credi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad also submitted copies of PAN, confirmation copy of ITR and bank statements pertaining to all the lenders for the financial period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 and these documentary evidences have not been controverted by the authorities below in any manner. Admittedly, the documentary evidences filed by the assessee before the AO was incomplete and the assessee filed copy of ITR of Shri Naveen Kumar and his affidavit before the ld. CIT(A). Likewise, copy of affidavit of Shri Dhanesh Ranjan, copy of ITR of Pristine Developers, copy of statement of Smt. Ritu Abrol and Sajan Abrol and cash book of Shri Narender Singh was filed before the ld.CIT(A). 10. In view of the foregoing, we finally observe that neither the AO nor the ld.CIT(A) has dou....