TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: (1) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC the has grievously erred in confirming addition of Rs. 19,83,889/- in respect of loan transaction added u/s 68 of the Act as alleged unexplained cash credit, and taxing the same u/s 115BBE of the Act. (2) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred confirming the addition of Rs. 5,18,175/ made as unexplained investment in purchases u/s 69 of the Act, and taxing the same u/s 115BBE of the Act, (3) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same were not reconciled with the original purchase records and accordingly treated the purchases as unexplained investment under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act. On this basis, the AO completed the assessment by making additions of Rs. 19,83,889 under section 68 and Rs. 5,18,175 under section 69 of the Act, computing the total income at Rs. 61,39,294, and also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee contended that complete details of the lender including returns, bank statements and ledgers were filed and that the loan from Chirag Shah HUF was genuine. It was further argued that the purchase from M/s. Saumil Impex Pvt. Ltd. was duly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... own bank statement showing receipt of Rs. 15,00,000 and Rs. 3,50,000 from the said HUF. The Counsel submitted that the source of the funds in the hands of Chirag Shah HUF came from M/s J. Himatlal & Co., and to substantiate this, the assessee furnished acknowledgment of return of J. Himatlal & Co., its bank statement and ledger accounts evidencing transfer of the amount to Chirag Shah HUF. It was contended that these documents cumulatively establish the three essential requirements of section 68 of the Act, namely the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the creditor. The Counsel submitted that the use of the same bank for the assessee, J. Himatlal & Co. and Chirag Shah HUF explains why the amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....expense ledger, but in fact the purchase of Rs. 5,18,175 was recorded and duly reconciled. The Counsel argued that the assessee had fully discharged his onus by providing confirmations, bank statements, purchase bills, registers, and statutory returns. It was pleaded that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were unjustified and deserve to be deleted in full. 7. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals) in their respective orders. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The issue for our consideration is whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 and section 69 of the Act and sustained by the CIT(A) were j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deleted addition where confirmations and supporting evidence were furnished. Likewise, the ITAT Mumbai in ACIT-20(2) v. Shri Joit Kumar B. Jain, ITA No. 5638/Mum/2017 (A.Y. 2010-11) held that once confirmations and bank statements are on record, addition cannot rest merely on suspicion. In view of these binding precedents, we hold that the assessee has discharged his onus, and the addition under section 68 is not sustainable. 9. Coming to the addition of Rs. 5,18,175 under section 69 of the Act, we note that the assessee produced the purchase invoice from M/s Saumil Impex Pvt. Ltd., confirmation ledger, purchase register, Form 26AS reflecting TCS collection, and his bank statement evidencing payment through cheque. These documents corro....