TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A)"] for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2009-10 to 2014-15 (by Revenue) and AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 (by Assessee) arising out of the assessment orders dated 30/12/2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) / 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Assessee is in Cross Objections for AYs 2009-10 to 2014-15. 2. At the outset, ld.AR submitted that though these appeals belong to different assessment years but the issues are identical except for the assessment years and amounts and, therefore, all these appeals heard together. Ld.CIT-DR did not object to the aforesaid submission made by the ld.AR. We, therefore, for the sake of convenience, proceed to dispose of all these appeals of the Revenue and Assessee as well as Cross Objections of the assessee by a consolidated order and for reference, we proceed with the facts for AY 2009-10 in Revenue's appeals. Facts of the case: 3. The assessee filed his original returns of income for respective years and the same were processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. A search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in Ahmedabad Commodity Traders Group on 18-12-2014. The assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmed Addition of Rs.25,601 12 Assessed Income u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A in Rs. 3,99,89,229 2,47,49,154 10,99,43,284 2,97,34,926 2,79,81,468 8,52,11,191 3,44,69,278 Since the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal in part, the Revenue is in appeal(s) before us, and the assessee filed two appeals and Cross Objections. Following are the grounds: 3. Grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeals are as under: (a) In IT(SS)A No.2/Ahd/2021 for AY 2009-10 "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that any addition during the assessment u/s.153A has to be confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s 132(1) of the Act, even though, there is no such stipulation in sec. 153A of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that sec. 153A requires a notice to be issued requiring the assessee to furnish his return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and to assess or re-assess the total income of those six assessment years. This scheme of assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/- made on account of Unexplained Credits in the form of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Act in-spite of the fact that there was no documentary evidence to prove genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of lenders. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,529/- made on account of interest expenses claimed towards above said loan/advance. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 10. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent." (b) In IT(SS)A No.4/Ahd/2021 for AY 2010-11 "1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that any addition during the assessment u/s. 153A has to be confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s. 132(1) of the Act, even though, there is no such stipulation in sec. 153A of the Act. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i.e NMCE in the last quarter of each year and said fictitious losses are set off with the profits earned from trading from other platforms. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 53,00,000/- made on account of Unexplained Credits in the form of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Act in-spite of the fact that there was no documentary evidence to prove genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of lenders. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,54,547/- made on account of interest expenses claimed towards above said loan/advance. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 11,89,915/- made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 11. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent." (c) In IT(SS)A No.3/Ahd/2021 for AY 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,94,40,574/- made on account of disallowance of fictitious commodity losses in respect of transactions made through NMCE platform. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the material facts and evidences brought on record by the AO as mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee was continuously booking losses from a single platform i.e NMCE in the last quarter of each year and said fictitious losses are set off with the profits earned from trading through other platforms. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 8. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent." (d) In IT(SS)A No.5/Ahd/2021 for AY 2012-13 "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that any addition during the assessment u/s.153A has to be confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s.132(1) of the Act, even though, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the material facts and evidences brought on record by the AO as mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee was continuously booking losses from a single platform ie NMCE in the last quarter of each year and said fictitious losses are set off with the profits earned from trading from other platforms. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5,78,357/- made u/s 14A rw. Rule 8D of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 9. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent." (e) In IT(SS)A No.6/Ahd/2021 for AY 2013-14 "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that any addition during the assessment u/s.153A has to be confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s.132(1) of the Act, even though, there is no such stipulation in sec. 153A of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was continuously booking losses from a single platform i.e NMCE in the last quarter of each year and said fictitious losses are set off with the profits earned from trading from other platforms. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,37,48,985/- made on account of Unexplained Credits in the form of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Act in-spite of the fact that there was no documentary evidence to prove genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of lenders. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,62,736/- made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 10. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent." (f) In IT(SS)A No.7/Ahd/2021 for AY 2014-15 "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,43,10,925/- made on account ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f all parties, copy of Contra Confirmation of the Lender Parties, Acknowledgement of Return filed by lender parties for the year under consideration, Bank Statement of the Lender Parties for the year under consideration. (iii) The appellant humbly submits that the genuineness of the transaction has also been proved in the present case of the appellant as the appellant also paid the interest to the 5 lender parties after deducting tax at source as per the provision of Income Tax Act and said TDS has also been deposited to the respective government authority. The appellant also repaid the unsecured loan alongwith interest to the depositor parties in subsequent year. The appellant has received the unsecured loans by account payee cheques and has also repaid the unsecured loans back to the lenders companies by account payee cheques which establish the genuineness of the transactions. Hence the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-l vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji, [2014] 42 taxmann.com 251 (Gujarat) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat-1 v. Shri Mahavir Crimpers (2018) 95 taxmann.com 323 (Gujarat), is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umbly submits that in the search proceedings in the case of appellant, no incriminating material for payments of cash in lieu of cheque payments were found and seized. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in giving the direction to the AO to verify the facts and satisfy himself as to whether those shares sold during the year (and which were originally held as stock in trade were converted into investment at the then market value on 01.04.2012) as per law in respect of the addition of Rs. 79,23,088/- being held by the Ld. AO as business income instead of claim of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). On facts and circumstances of the case as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs. 79,23,088/- by treating the same as LTCG. The appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time of hearing." PRAYER "The appellant therefore respectfully prays that :- 1. The addition of Rs. 1,09,52,204/- on account of alleged unexplained credit of confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) may kindly be deleted. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rajkot-l vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji, [2014] 42 taxmann.com 251 (Gujarat) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat-1 v. Shri Mahavir Crimpers (2018) 95 taxmann.com 323 (Gujarat), is squarely applicable in the case of the appellant. (iv) The Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the written submission filed by the appellant as well as various judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court, other High Courts and Tribunals relied upon by the appellant in a proper perspective. (v) The appellant humbly submits that the Ld. AO has not carried out any cross enquiry from 5 Parties and not examined them by recording the statements of 5 Parties u/s. 131 of the Act for alleged additions. (vi) The appellant humbly submit that the Ld. AO has not granted the opportunity of cross examination of 5 Parties and violated the principles of Natural Justice in view of Judicial Pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata - II [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), Hon'ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ramanbhai B. Patel in Tax Appeal No. 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted. 2. The disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act of Rs. 11,86,356/- (out of total disallowance of Rs. 24,90,730/-) confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 3. Such and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may justify." 3.2. Grounds raised by the Assessee in his Cross Objections are as under: (a) In CO No.14/Ahd/2021 (in IT(SS)A No.2/Ahd/2021) for AY 2009-10 "All the grounds in this Cross Objections are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other: 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has rightly held in Para 5.3 on Page 54 of the appellate order that "I am of the considered view that the necessary requirement of the related incriminating materials found during the course of search for making additions during the reassessment u/s. 153A is for unabated assessment years (le the assessment years for which either assessments u/s. 143(3)/144/147 have been completed or the time limits for issue of notices u/s. 143(2) have elapsed on the date of search). Accordingly with respect to the date of search in the case being 18.12.2014, the assessment years from A.Y.2009-10 to A.Y. 2013-14 are unabated years as the time limit for issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and related law need not be gone through however as the allegation in the case is in the nature of scam, the facts and the arguments of the AO and counter arguments of the appellant have been critically looked into and it is seen that there was no basis by way of cogent evidences in spite of searches and surveys conducted, and thus the addition does not stand on merits also. While no incriminating material was found during the search to hold that the losses accrued to the appellant were bogus/fictitious or accommodation entries, it is also the fact that during the search no tangible assets in form of cash, jewellery or any other assets were found which could have been held to be representing the undisclosed/ unaccounted income arising out of the alleged fictitious/ contrived losses. If this was fictitious and contrived losses aggregating to Rs. 23 crores during the period from FY 2008- 09 to FY.2013-14, it must have some manifestations by way of some tangible assets with somebody. In spite of search conducted not a shred of any evidence was found, not even terms of any rough jotting anywhere. Thus even if the alleged fictitious/contrived losses are conceded, there is no trace of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... found during the course of the search and therefore the additions are void ab-initio and are to be quashed because the AY 2010-11 is also an unabated AY and the appellant is protected by various case laws including the decision of the jurisdictional ITAT of Ahmedabad and the jurisdictional HC of Gujarat in Saumaya Construction Pvt.Ltd and host of other cases. Under the circumstances, the submissions made on the merits of the issues made by the appellant become mere academic and are not required to be gone through. However as apparently there was an element/allegation of scam made by the FMC in the dealings on NMCE platform, the addition related to disallowance of "fictitious commodity losses of transactions made through NMCE platform" have been carefully looked into and in view of the facts brought out by the appellant and failure of the AO to bring on record direct & cogent evidences in relation there to and relying upon various case laws cited in its support by the appellant, the disallowance of such loss has not been found sustainable and the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,78,58,352/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of alleged fictitious commodity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issues made by the appellant become mere academic and are not required to be gone through. However as apparently there was an element / allegation of scam made by the FMC in the dealings on NMCE platform, the addition related to disallowance of "fictitious commodity losses of transactions made through NMCE platform" have been carefully looked into and in view of the facts brought out by the appellant and failure of the AO to bring on record direct & cogent evidence in relation thereto and relying upon various case laws cited in its support by the appellant, the disallowance of such loss has not been found sustainable" and the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 10,94,40,574/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of alleged fictitious commodity losses of transactions made through NMCE Platform. 2. The Respondent craves right to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objection." (d) In CO No.17/Ahd/2021 (in IT(SS)A No.5/Ahd/2021) for AY 2012-13 "All the grounds in this Gross Objections are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other:- 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove grounds of cross objection." (e) In CO No.18/Ahd/2021 (in IT(SS)A No.6/Ahd/2021) for AY 2013-14 "All the grounds in this Cross Objections are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other- 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly held in Para 9.7 on Page 74 & 75 of the Appellate Order that following the decision for AY 2009-10 before, it is held that legally those additions could not have been made by the AO during the reassessment proceedings u/s. 153A because there was no related incriminating material found during the course of the search and therefore the additions are void ab-initio and are to be quashed because the AY 2013-14 is also an unabated AY and the appellant is protected by various case laws including the decision of the jurisdictional ITAT of Ahmedabad and the jurisdictional HC of Gujarat in Saumaya Construction Pvt.Ltd. and host of other cases. Under the circumstances, the submissions made on the merits of the issues made by the appellant become mere academic and are not required to be gone through. However as apparently there was an element/allegation of scam made by the FMC in the dealings on NMCE platform, the addition related to disallowan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-15 "All the grounds in this Cross Objections are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other: 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly held in Para 10.9 & 10.10 of the appellate order that" as to the addition of Rs. 4,43,10,925/- on account of disallowance of losses on commodity trading made through NMCE Platform done through brokers namely Darshan Sheth and R.P. Jambuwala, following the decision for AY 2009-10 before, it is held that those additions could not have been made by the AO during the assessment proceedings u/s.153A because the basis on which the AO has adverse inferences against the appellant are only circumstantial and no concrete/direct material has been brought on record to prove that the transactions carried on the NMCE platform were bogus. It is seen that the AO has been very selective in choosing the data for analysis because in reality the appellant had incurred profit in many transactions on NMCE platform that the appellant had incurred losses in good number of transactions on other platform which have not been doubted by the AO. and that the appellant has traded in so called illiquid commodities on other platforms/exchanges also. The appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ume of exchange artificially was reported. The DR also submitted the copy of the FMC report for 2011- 12. 5.1. The Ld.DR further stated that from the reports of Forward Market Commission (FMC), it was found that on the National Multi Commodity Exchange (NMCE) platform, there were bogus clients who used to artificially increase the market and the clients who used the platform booked contrived losses through the pre-mediated synchronized trades and it was also found that such contrived losses booked on MCE were used to set off the other genuine profits booked on other well-regulated exchanges in order to evade the taxes. Consequently, Directorate of Investigation, Ahmedabad put under scrutiny 85 entities who booked losses more than Rs. 10 crores on NMCE. Investigation Wing prepared the list of beneficiaries as per information provided by the Investigating Directorate and the assessee was found to be one of the beneficiaries of taking bogus losses. 5.2. The Ld.DR also stated that some brokers accepted the fact that they arranged bogus losses for getting extra commission in cash and because of which brokers such as Divya Commodities, Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd, Prime Commodities, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld.DR further argued that though the judgements relied on are with respect to Section 147 of the Act, the same should be read in lines of section 153A of the Act as Pursuant to introduction of Finance Act, 2021, section 153A/153C of the Act was no longer applicable in cases where search had been conducted on or after 01.04.2021, and the same is to be governed by the provisions of section 147/148 of the Act. 6. The Ld.Assessee's Representative (AR), on the other hand, contended that no addition could have been made in the order under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act for AY 2009-10 to AY 2013-14, in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of the search on 18.12.2014. The Ld.AR stated that no incriminating material was found during the search that would warrant additional disallowances by the AO in respect of losses incurred through NMCE transactions. The Ld.AR also stated that the addition was made on the basis of statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act, but there was no specific mention of the name of assessee in such statements. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT vs. Saumya Construction Pv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sallowance under Section 14A was also dismissed as the AO failed to establish a direct nexus between interest-bearing funds and share trading/investment activities. The Tribunal held that Section 14A would not apply in cases where dividend income is incidental to trading. (5) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central - 3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC): The Supreme Court held that for completed/unabated assessments, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions to the total income under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The judgment emphasized that the scope of assessment under Section 153A is limited to material found during the search in such cases. This ruling aligns with the decisions of the majority of High Courts and reinforces the principle that additions to income for completed assessments must be based on incriminating material unearthed during the search. 6.3. These decisions collectively underscore the principle that reassessment under Section 153A of the Act requires the presence of incriminating material found during the search. It is very important to note that in the present cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition without concrete evidence. The assessment order lacked tangible evidence, such as undisclosed income or unaccounted assets, to substantiate the alleged fictitious losses. The assessment order does not specifically mention any incriminating material seized during the search that would justify the additions. The AO did not provide the assessee with the opportunity to cross-examine key individuals whose statements were used to make the addition, which violates the principles of natural justice. The reliance on unverified statements without giving the assessee a chance to rebut or cross-examine the witnesses undermines the validity of the addition. 8.1. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the judicial precedents set in DCIT Circle-2 vs. M/s. Pyramid Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 512/JP/15), where the ITAT held that disallowing speculative losses without credible investigation or evidence is untenable. The decision emphasized that the AO must provide concrete evidence when making additions based on alleged fictitious transactions. 8.2. The assessee provided reasonable rebuttal evidence, demonstrating that the transactions were genuine and conducted through registered brokers on secu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g are the details of assessment year wise addition: A.Y. Amount in Rs. Name of Party Interest in Rs. Revenue's Ground No. Assessee's CO Ground No. 2009- 10 75,50,000/- Bhoomidev Credit Corporation Ltd. 1,00,529/- 7 and 8 4 and 5 2010- 11 53,00,000/- Bhoomidev Credit Corporation Ltd. 2,54,547/- 7 and 8 2 2013- 14 2,37,48,985/- Total Nil 7 2 77,52,731/- Riddhi Siddhi Enterprise 25,45,567/- Kiranben Pineshbhai Panchiwala 64,95,724/- Rekhaben Devchand PAnchiwala 39,39,072/- Pinesh Devchand Panchiwala 30,15,891/- Devchand V. Panchiwala 2014- 15 1,09,52,204/- Total NIl No grounds Assessee is in appeal 9,30,328/- Riddhi Siddhi Enterprise Nil 50,55,036/- Kiranben Pineshbhai Panchiwala Nil 7,79,487/- Rekhaben Devchand PAnchiwala Nil 39,40,515/- Pinesh Devchand Panchiwala Nil 2,46,838/- Devchand V. Panchiwala Nil 2015- 16 36,80,676/- Total NIl No grounds Assessee is in appeal 7,73,102/- Riddhi Siddhi Enterprise Nil 6,79,059/- Kiranben Pineshbhai Panchiwala Nil 3,80,393/- Rekhaben Devchand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO did not discharge the burden of proving that the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions under Section 68 by not adequately examining the source of the loans in the hands of the lenders. The evidence of repayment of loans in A.Y. 2011-12, along with the active status of BCCL and compliance with TDS provisions, further supports the genuineness of the transactions. The Ld.CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions as the AO did not provide a clear and satisfactory basis for his dissatisfaction with the nature and source of the loans. The Ld.CIT(A)'s reasoning aligns with judicial precedents, which require a thorough examination of the lender's capacity and the genuineness of the transaction. Further the AO attempted to make additions on account of unsecured loans and interest paid thereon based on statements and observations unrelated to any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessments were unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search, these additions cannot be made under Section 153A of the Act. 10.2. Based on the above analysis, we do not find any reason to interfere in the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omes and immediate deposits in their bank accounts, which originated from cash deposits in third-party accounts. - The AO's investigation revealed that funds were ultimately traced back to cash deposits in bank accounts of third parties. - The AO concluded that the loans might be sham or mere accommodation entries. - Despite compliance with procedural formalities like interest payments, TDS deductions, and accepted income returns, the transactions were still suspicious. - The AO's unsatisfaction was based on thorough investigations and not arbitrary. - The AO's findings justified invoking Section 68/69A of the Income Tax Act, leading to the conclusion that the loans were not genuine. - For AY 2013-14, additions were deleted due to the absence of related incriminating materials found during the search. - However, for AY 2014-15 (an abated year), new loans and the entire interest (including on loans carried forward) are disallowable. 12. Before us, the Ld.AR reiterated the arguments placed before the Ld.CIT(A) and also stated that the assessee has already placed on record all the appropriate and relevant ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sses along with GIR numbers/permanent account numbers as well as confirmations along with the copies of assessment orders passed in the cases of creditors at serial Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16. In the remaining cases where the assessment orders passed were not readily available, the assessee has furnished the copies of returns filed by the creditors with the Department along with their statement of income. All the loans were received by the assessee by account payee cheques and the repayments of loans have also been made by account payee cheques along with the interest in relation to those loans. It is rather strange that although the Assessing Officer has treated the cash credits as nongenuine, he has not made any addition on account of interest claimed/paid by the assessee in relation to those cash credits, which has been claimed as business expenditure and has been allowed by the Assessing Officer. It is also pertinent to note that in respect of some of the creditors the interest was credited to their accounts/paid to them after deduction of tax at source and information to this effect was given in the loan confirmation statements by those creditors filed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cases of those creditors by treating the cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69. 8. Further, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer reads as under: "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." 9. The phraseology of section 68 is clear. The Legislature has laid down that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In this, case the legislative mandate is not in terms of the words "shall be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year". The Supreme Court while interpreting similar phraseology used in section 69 has held that in creating the legal fiction the phraseology employs t....