TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddition of Rs. 73,54,821/- on account of difference in the accounts with M/s Star Shine Pvt. Ltd. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the IT Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the learned assessing officer and CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The assessee craves to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal." 3. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, relates to addition of Rs. 1,13,00,000/-, on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Succinct facts qua ground no.1 are that the assessee filed original return of income on 30.09.2009, and thereafter it has filed revised return of income on 24.03.2010, declaring total loss at Rs. 2,02,54,264/-. The case was selected for scrutiny manually and notice u/s 143(2) dated 17.09.2010, was issued and served upon the assessee on 24.09.2011. The assessee attended the proceedings and submitted the details/explanations as called for. The assessee is a Private Limited Company, deriving income from Import/Export/Trading of used garments. The books of account are audited and the return is accompanied by Tax audit Repor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n respect of the amount of loan which has been directly remitted by the Non-resident director from his foreign sources/accounts. However, the assessee has failed to prove the Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the remitter/depositors in respect of Rs. 1,08,00,000/-.The ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer, in respect of loan accepted by the assessee -company, through cheque at Rs. 5,00,000/-. Hence, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,13,00,000/- (Rs.1,08,00,000 + Rs. 5,00,000). 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 7. Shri Kalpesh Doshi, the Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that assessee has furnished various details to prove the genuineness of cash credit, such as, (i)Confirmation of account by the depositor, (ii)HDFC Bank Account of depositor Bank Details of Scotia Bank to prove the fund transfer from non-resident director, (iii) Affidavit of the director stating the amount of deposits and the source of such fund, (iv) Affidavit of Shri Sukhwinder Singh to confirm that he has extended loan to Mr. Kuldip Singh Grewal to the tune of Rs. 1,03, 00,000/-, ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk Account of depositor Bank Details of Scotia Bank to prove the fund transfer from non-resident director, (iii) Affidavit of the director stating the amount of deposits and the source of such fund, (iv) Affidavit of Shri Sukhwinder Singh to confirm that he has extended loan to Mr. Kuldip Singh Grewal to the tune of Rs. 1,03,00,000/-, out of amount received from the sale of land by the said person and the copy of agreement to sell the land, (v) Copy of bank statement of Shri Sukhwinder Singh from which the amount loan has been transferred to depositor account. (vi) Copy of affidavit of Shri Sandeep Singh, the relative of Mr. Kuldip Singh Grewal, who has extended loan of Rs. 3,50,000/-, out of his personal agriculture income and from the personal borrowings. (vii) PAN Number and address of these persons were also filed before the lower authorities. We find that by submitting these documents and evidences, the assessee has proved the source of the amount. Therefore, we find that assessee has discharged the initial burden of cash credit, and once the initial burden is proved by the assessee then the onus is shifted on the department. 10. As we have noted in above para that the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69." 11. We find that the assessment year, involved in the assessee`s case under consideration, is the assessment year 2009-10, where the assessee need not to prove 'source of the source', however, we note that the assessee has proved the source in a satisfactory manner, as noted by us above. Therefore, we note that assessee has discharged his initial onus, and once that onus is discharged, it is for the Revenue to prove that the credit found in the books of accounts of the assessee is the undisclosed income of the assessee. Our view is fortified by the judgement of the Hon`ble Gauhati High Court; in the case of, Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT & ANR. (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau), wherein it was held that the burden of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions as well as creditworthiness of the creditor is confined to the transactions which have taken place between the assessee and the creditors, and it is not the burden of the assessee to show the source of his creditor or to prove the creditworthiness of the source of the sub-creditors. 12. We note that assessing officer has also made another addition of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee, and held that assessee has not explained the difference in a satisfactory manner, therefore, the assessing officer made the addition of Rs. 73,54,821/-. 16. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), has confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer. The ld CIT(A) has just reiterated the facts narrated by the assessing officer, and confirmed the action of the assessing officer. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. The ld Counsel for the assessee, argued before us, that the party has wrongly credited assessee's ledger account in its book with a sum which was not payable to the assessee but to another party M/s. Vision Impex. According to assessee this wrong entry has occurred because assessee has entered into a purchase agreement with M/s Vision Impex, who subsequently dispatched the goods but whose delivery was refused by the assessee and which was subsequently delivered to M/s. Star Shines Pvt Ltd, through high seas sale transaction. The ld Counsel, therefore stated that assessee has explained the transaction with documentary evidences, hence no addition should have been made by the assessing officer. 17. On the other ha....