TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1091
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to explain and justify the loan creditors. In reply, the assessee filed confirmations, PAN and bank account statements of all the loan parties from whom loans were taken during the year under appeal. The AO by observing that average balance in the bank accounts of many of the loan creditors was below Rs. 5,000/- and there were either cash deposit or account transfer of same amount in some of the bank accounts concluded the said loans as unexplained credits and circulation of assessee's own money and bogus in nature as the creditworthiness of the creditors was not proved. Thereafter, the assessment was completed at a total income of Rs. 17,02,25,505/- after making addition by holding the unsecured loans as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. Against such order the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dt. 03.02.2025 has deleted the additions. Aggrieved by the said order, revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. 3. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in law by accepting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....action of the Ld. CIT(A) in his order dated 03.02.2025 in deleting the addition of Rs 17,02,25,505/- made under section 68 in respect of unexplained cash credits eyen when the assessee had failed to prove the creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions. 2. In the assessment orders the Assessing Officer (AO) has made a detailed discussion in pages 3 to 7 and concluded that the assessee had failed to prove the capacity of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions. 2.1 It is undisputed that the in the year under consideration, the opening balance of sundry creditors was Rs Nil. 2.2 It is undisputed that during the year, the assessee has claimed to have, borrowed from 250 persons whereas in the earlier year there was no such transaction. 2.3 It is undisputed that the assessee had submitted only PAN, confirmations and bank statements of these lenders. 2.4 It is undisputed that most of the lenders filed their return of income showing NIL or very nominal returned income. 2.5 It is undisputed that, there was a peculiar pattern in the bank statements of almost all the bank accounts of the lenders that averag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....worthiness of the creditor, the AO is entitled to draw inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 has held that onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. When the nature and source of money or otherwise cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee. 9. In PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC), the Apex Court has reiterated that the initial onus is upon the assessee to establish three things necessary to obviate the mischief of Section 68. Those are: (i) identity of the investors; (ii) their creditworthiness; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. It held that where the assessee failed to discharge the onus required under section 68 of the Act, the AO was justified in adding back the amounts to the Assessee's income. 10. Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court of Allahabad in Rupal Jain v. CIT 2023] 152 taxmann.com 345 (Allahabad) has held where assessee though had disclosed source of deposit but could ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re filing of PAN Number/ income tax return of creditor not enough14. It was contended that PAN/Aadhar/ITRs of the creditors have been filed therefore, the identity; creditworthiness of the creditors has been established and genuineness of the transaction is proven by the assessee. However, it is a settled law that mere filing of PAN Number/income tax return of creditor not enough. 14.1 The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, in CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820, ruled mere filing of income-tax file number of creditor was not sufficient to prove genuineness of cash credit - there should be creditworthiness and also there should be genuine transaction mere filing of filing of income tax return is not enough to prove genuineness of cash credit. Mere filing of confirmations is not enough 15. The Ld. AR contended that as the confirmations have been filed in all cases, there was no case of making any addition in this case. However, it is a settled law that mere filing of confirmations is not sufficient to prove the ingredients of section 68. Reliance is placed on following case laws: 15.1 The jurisdictional Hon'ble Allahabad High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors. 16.3 The jurisdictional Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Smt. Prem Lata Sethi [2014] 220 Taxman 333 (All) held that transaction through bank account is not enough to explain creditworthiness of creditor and genuineness of transaction. 16.4 Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta), held that even the loan through bank cannot be accepted as genuine unless the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors are proved. Mere payment of account payee cheque is not sacrosanct nor can it make a non-genuine transaction genuine. SLP in this case Dismissed/Rejected in [2023] 152 taxmann.com 346 (SC). 16.5 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT v. Bikram Singh [2017] 85 taxmann.com 104 (Delhi) held that mere establishing of their identity and fact that amounts had been transferred through cheque payments, did not by itself mean that transactions were genuine. 16.6 Hon'ble Madras High Court in Mangilal Jain v. ITO [2009] 315 ITR 105 (Mad.) has held that merely the fact that the transaction was by proper banking channel was not su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In this case, it is undisputed fact that there was no sundry creditor/unsecured loan at the beginning of the year; suddenly 250 different individuals have shown to have extended loans to the assessee. It is not known as to how the assessee came into contact with these 250 different persons when he had no acquaintance with these persons in past. Copies of ITRs of these persons show that most of them had either filed Nil returned income or very nominal income. Further, very peculiar pattern is observed in the bank statements of almost all the bank accounts of the lenders that average balance in all these accounts was below Rs 5,000/- only and there was either a cash deposit or transfer in the bank account of lenders on a particular day and immediately thereafter same amount was transferred on the same day to the assessee. All these facts, overall surrounding circumstances show that applying the test of human probabilities, the transactions were not genuine. 18.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding 'circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 19. In view of the overall discussion made above, it is submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified, on facts and in law, in ignoring the overwhelming observations of the AO the assessee had failed to prove the creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transaction. It is therefore requested that the grounds of appeal raised by the department may kindly be allowed." 7. On the other hand, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee vide letter dt. 09.03.2024 had filed the complete details of the all the 245 loans creditors from whom the loans of Rs. 17,02,25,505/- were taken during the year. Such details include the following documents: 1. PAN and Aadhar card 2. Bank Statements 3. Confirmations 4. Bhu Pustika, wherever applicable 5. ITR Acknowledgement 6. Balance Sheet, wherever available 8. A chart containing complete name and the nature of evidences as filed before the AO is available at paper book pages 14-43 filed by the assessee. It is also submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that in respect to two parties, they have not provided the requisite details and a request was made to AO t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls of only six parties had made a general observation that in almost all the cases similar deficiencies were noticed which is nothing but on mere suspicion and conjectures. Ld. AR further submitted that ld. CIT(A) after appreciating these facts and further by making in-depth analysis of the evidences filed by the assessee and further by considering the judgements relied upon and after distinguishing the judgements relied by AO has deleted the additions. ld.AR thus submitted that ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the additions made and humbly prayed for the confirmation of the order of ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR also filed a detailed written submission which reads as under: "Backgrounds of the case 1. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in business of real estate filed its return of income declaring of NIL. Income in year under consideration because the firm purchased the property but could not sale during the year under consideration. 2. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and specific issue relating to 'High liabilities in the form of 250 Loan creditors' was pointed out by Ld. AO which amounts to Rs. 17,02,25,505/ 3. The asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Conclusion taken before CIT(A) Finding given by CIT(A) The Ld. AO at pages 1-3 of the assessment order has discussed as under: a. Facts of the case, defect pointed out by the Ld. AO due to high liabilities stands payable in the books of assessee. b. Details of opportunities given during course of assessment proceedings. c. That the assessee has responded to all the queries relating to high liability payable by the assessee in form of loan advanced from 245 parties alongwith documents i.e. Aadhar/Pan, Bank statements and confirmations of 243 parties out of 245 loan creditors. Further, the LD. AD at page 3(last para) to page 5 (para4. 5) of the assessment order has discussed about defects pointed out as under: d. That the ITR's filed by the loan creditors are either filed declaring income of Nil or have filed returns declaring nominal Incomes e. Average balances in theit loan creditors are below 5,000/- f. Pattern of first depositing the cash and then lending the same on the same dates is founds out of bank statements filled by the assessee in case of 6 different lenders having names Sh. Anant Jain, Sh. Amar Singh, Sh. Ankush Singal, Sh. Anil Kumar Ja....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt has observed that Assessee received certain sum as loan from two companies Assessing Officer having found that said lender companies were shell entities added loan amount to income of assessee under section 68 Bank statement of lender companies revealed high transactions during day and a consistently minimal balance at end of working day - Further, day when assessee was given loan there were credit entries of almost similar amounts, and balance after these transactions was a small amount Tribunal taking into account bank statements of lender companies and fact that assessee failed to produce these lenders for verification held that alleged loan transactions were not genuine High Court by impugned order held that since Tribunal had given elaborate reasons to come to conclusion that entire loan transaction was not genuine, appeal filed before it was to be dismissed - Whether Special Leave Petition against impugned order was to be dismissed. j. Ld. AO has concluded the case of the assessee at page 7 and treated the amount of Rs.17,02,25,505/- as unexplained cash credit and made addition in the hands of the assessee. The assessee vide submission dated 14.03.2024 before the CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly. The assessee vide submission dated 05.07.2024 before the CIT(A) filed the details as under: g. Howsoever, the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings have filed total confirmation of 243 parties out of 245 parties. Therefore, vide additional submission assessee has filed confirmations of 2 remaining parties namely Mukesh Sharma and Umesh Chand Jain. Thus, the confirmation all the creditors were filed before the Worthy CIT(A) alongwith confirmations of above remaining parties thus, the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of transaction cannot be held as unexplained That the Worthy CIT(A) at pages 1 to 3 of the First Appellate Order has discussed as under: a) Brief fact of the case and Ground of Appeal taken by the assessee. b) Dismissing the Ground No. 1 and 4 being general in nature. That the Worthy CIT(A) at pages 4 to 8 of the First Appellate Order has discussed as under: c) Considering Ground No. 2, 3, 5 and 6 as intra-alia linked with same Issue of unexplained cash credit u/s 68. d) Order of AD reproduced at pages 4 to 1 of the Appellate Order. wherein, defect point out by the AD and conclusion drawn with reference of di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellate order in above paragraphs. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. It is further submitted that the Ld. Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings has not doubted any of the evidences filed by the assessee and since we have proved the genuineness of the lenders and creditors and, thus, no doubt should have been raised by the Assessing Officer and, in so far as, the returned income is concerned, the finding of the Assessing Officer is contradictory and further, the returned Income is not a criteria and there was sufficient balance in the bank accounts of all the parties concerned, from where, the amount had been advanced and no more requirement was asked by the Assessing officer and reliance is being placed on the following judgments: i. Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corpn, (P.) Ltd. reported in (1886) 25 Taxman 80F (SC) vide order dated 19.03.1986. Copy placed at page 1 to 5 of judgement set ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chunnilal as reported in 211 ITR 11. Copy placed at page 6 of judgement set regarding source of source. iii) Judgment in the case of Mis. Loil Overseas Food....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10.] 11. That a bare reading of Section 68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessee offer no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offered by the assessee in the opinion of the Assessing Officer is not satisfactory, it is only then the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. The expression "the assessee's offer no explanation" means where the assessee offer no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books maintained by the assessee. It is true the opinion of the Assessing Officer for not accepting the explanation offered by the assessee as not satisf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the AO noted that the creditors had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. Nil or very nominal total income. Therefore the AO concluded that the unsecured loans received from the creditors amounting to Rs. 17,02,25,505/- was unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act & added it to the total income of the appellant for the year under consideration. 5.4 During the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant claimed that it had discharged the initial burden lying upon it and the onus lying upon the appellant was discharged to the AO, which was not discharged by the AO. The AO made addition of unsecured loan on account of unexplained cash credits only on the basis of cash deposits or other transfer entry of same amount as that of loan given, in the bank account of the creditors on the date of giving loan to the appellant firm. The AO made allegation that the loans given to the appellant was nothing but the appellant's unaccounted money which was circulated and brought into the books of accounts of the appellant by giving it colour of the unsecured loans. However if this were the case, the AO ought to have made enquiry and have to show how the money change....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the loan or deposit is paid through banking channels to the beneficiaries. However in this case, the AO failed to bring on record that how cash of the appellant firm had changed hands before it got routed through multiple layers in the form of unsecured loans. Thus without conducting any independent enquiry the AO made addition only on the basis of suspicions and surmises. In this regards the assessee placed reliance on the following judicial decisions:- 1. Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Cash Credits - Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 12,85,000 as unexplained cash credits in respect of loans taken by assessee from 21 parties Assessee had discharged initial onus by providing identity of all creditors by giving their complete addresses, GIR numbers/permanent account numbers and copies of assessment orders wherever readily available Assessee had also proved capacity of creditors by showing that amounts were received by account payee cheques drawn from bank accounts of creditors Repayment of loans and interest thereon was also made by account payee cheques by assessee and tax also had been dedu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irm had deposited amounts in their capital accounts in firm Amounts were claimed to have been received by them as gift In order to prove genuineness of gift, partners explained that donors had filed their Income-tax and gift-tax returns Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and, added said amount as unexplained deposit under section 68 Tribunal upheld order of Assessing Officer Whether on facts, assessee could not be asked to prove source of source or origin of origin Held, yes -Whether, therefore,. Tribunal erred in holding that amount deposited by two partners was liable to be, added under section 68 on ground that gifts received by respective partners from various persons could not be explained as creditworthiness of donors had not been established - Held, yes [Para 9] [in favour of assessee)." 1. Jharkhand High Court in the case of Pravao Tendu Leaves Processing Co. Vs. WIRE "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Cash credits (Gifts) -Assessment year 2001-02 Whether under section 68, Assessing Officer, while assessing a partnership firm, can go behind source of income of partnership firm, but he cannot go to 'source of source' Held, yes Wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hiness to give loan as they had very small bank balances and were earning very meagre income. In the given facts, it was held by the tribunal that it was money of the assessee which was routed through bank accounts of lenders for purpose of giving credits to the assessee and entries were only accommodation entries & as such, could not be considered as genuine transaction. I have perused the impugned judicial decision & material available on record and noted that the facts of the present case are distinguished from the one quoted by the AO. As in the quoted case, the assessee could produce only one lender for examination whereas in the present case, the creditors were not called for examination but the appellant firm had duly furnished the confirmation from all the creditors. The AO further relied on the case of Shankar Ghosh Vs. Ito (1985) 23 TTJ (Cal.) wherein it is held that merely proving the identity of the creditors does not discharge the onus of the assessee if the capacity or creditworthiness of the creditors is not proved. I have perused the impugned judicial decision & material available on record and noted that the facts of the present case are distinguished from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considered the appellant's submission and made addition with predetermined mind. As can be seen from the submission filed by the appellant before the AO that the appellant had furnished ITR Acknowledgment, loan balance confirmation, bank statement, in many cases details of land holding and further details of repayment wherever the loan was repaid, however ignoring all these, the AO had concluded that identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of transaction has not been proved. Further, since many loans were repaid in the year itself and also in subsequent years, the question of getting accommodation entries in the guise of loan does not survive. 14. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on him. Where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden is on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. It m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me-tax v. Paswara Papers Ltd. reported in [2024] 159 taxmann.com 604 (Allahabad), the hon'ble court has held as under: "INCOME TAX: Where assessee received loan from various creditors who sold their old jewellery and gave loan to assessee out of sale consideration, since assessee had disclosed name of jewellers to whom jewellery was sold and also established mode of payment through banking channel, and moreover existence of deposits made to assessee by creditors was not in dispute, impugned addition under section 68 with respect to loan could not be sustained. 20. The coordinate bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of ITO Vs. Alpha Contech Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.3351/Del/2016 vide order dt. 28.07.2023 has held as under: "7. On careful consideration of above rival submission, first of all, we note that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act, by observing that despite several opportunity the assessee failed to prove creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction and thus could not discharge onus as per requirement of sec 68 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) and filed additional evidence under rule 46A of the Rules on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee has also been independently verified from this Office by way of issue of letter us 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the third party concerned, i.e., to Ms Fennie Commercial Private Limited, 96-AV9, Neelkanth Apartments, Kishan Ganj, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070. 5. The said party has furnished its detailed reply to the letter issued us 133(6) vide its letter dated 08.01.2016, which is placed on record. The said party has given the details of the share application money of Rs. 3.60 crores advanced by it to the appellant company and also produced the ledger account of the assessee company in its books for the relevant period, apart from the copy of the ITR-V in its case, copy of the Audit Report, Balance sheet, P & L Account and annexures. It is also seen from the annexures to the Audit Report that under the head "Loans & Advances (totaling Rs. 7,41,00,000/-), the name of the appellant company is appearing the List of Share application money given details wherein the sum of Rs. 3.60 crores has been shown against the name of the appellant company, amongst other entities to whom share application money had been advanced by this company. As regards the sou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been accounted for by the appellant as unsecured loan in its balance sheet. The AO has also examined the ledger account of the appellant company from the lender party's books of accounts. The lender party has also filed copy of its return of income, audit report, balance sheet, profit & loss account and annexures. It has been observed by the AO from the annexures of the audit report that lender has shown loans and advances totalling Rs. 7,41,00,000/- in its balance sheet. The appellant's name is also appearing in the loan and advances and has been shown as share application money of Rs. 3.60 crore in the name of appellant. AO has also verified the balance sheet of the lender company and it is seen that said company has shown share premium reserve in its balance sheet in A.Y. 2010-11 out of which the amount has been given to the appellant. All these facts establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. It is seen that the said party has confirmed the transactions with the appellant and source of the money is also explained. M/s Fennie Commercial Pvt. Ltd. is assessed to tax with Ward 9(1). New Delhi and filing its return of income. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied in making addition under section 68 on account of share application money merely on general inference to be drawn from the reading of the investigation report. The least that Assessing Officer ought to have done was to enquire into matter by, if necessary, invoking his powers under section 131 summoning the share applicants or directors. b. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mark Hospitals (P.) Ltd. [ 2015 ] 58 taxmann.com 226 (Madras) HIGH COURT OF MADRAS "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Burden of proof - Assessment year 2006-07 - Assessee had obtained unsecured loans from agriculturists and submitted their names and addresses, but did not provide their PAN cards - Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 - It was found that loans were given to assessee through cheques and all creditors had confirmed that they had advanced loans mentioned against their names to assessee and, thus, identity of creditors could not be disputed - Further, all creditors were agriculturists and therefore, they did not have PAN card - Whether, on facts, no addition could be made - Held, yes [Para 6] [In favour of assessee]" c. ITO Vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee for obtaining the hawala entry in dispute, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer was not able to bring anything on record that it was the assessee's own money which was routed in the form of share application money and has rightly deleted the same. 7. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned first appellate authority has passed the impugned order under the law and according to the facts of the present case and has rightly deleted the addition in dispute. We find no infirmity in the impugned order and uphold the impugned order by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue." d. Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., SLP (CC) no. 15640 of 2012, dated 17-09-2012 (Supreme Court), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. in which it has been held by Hon'ble Court that once adequate evidence/material given by the assessee, which would prima facie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....smissed." The facts of the above cited judicial pronouncements are identical with the facts of the appellant case, therefore, the ratio of the above cited judicial pronouncements is squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant case, hence, unsecured loan received by the appellant from M/s Fennie Commercial Pvt. Ltd. cannot be termed as unexplained income of the appellant and cannot be added u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the unsecured loan received from the above mentioned party is treated as genuine transaction and cannot be added us 68 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,60,00,000/- is deleted." 21. Another major fact which was ignored/ not appreciated by the AO is that in many cases loans were repaid by the assessee in the year itself or in subsequent year and the necessary details of the repayment of loan amounts were also submitted to the AO. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Ojas Tarmake Pvt Ltd reported in 156 Taxmann.com 75 has observed as under: "Where appellant showed unsecured loans received during relevant assessment year and AO made addition on ground that appellant failed to discharge onus of liability as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actions in issue, or as regards the creditworthiness of the creditors, it would have had to discharge the onus which had shifted on to it. A bald assertion by the ASSESSING OFFICER that the credits were a circular route adopted by the Assessee to plough back its own undisclosed income into its accounts, can be of no avail. The revenue was required to prove this allegation. An allegation by itself which is based on assumption will not pass muster in law. The revenue would be required to bridge the gap between the suspicions and proof in order to bring home this allegation. The ITAT, in our view, without adverting to the aforementioned principle laid stress on the fact that despite opportunities, the Assessee and/or the creditors had not proved the genuineness of the transaction. Based on this the ITAT construed the intentions of the Assessee as being mala Ride. In our view the ITAT ought to have analyzed the material rather than be burdened by the fact that some of the creditors had chosen not to make a personal appearance before the A.O. If the A.0. had any doubt about the material placed on record, which was largely bank statements or the creditors and their income tax returns, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loan or borrowing, or any other liability credited in the books of an assessee shall be treated as explained only if the source of funds is also explained in the hands of the creditor or entry provider. However, this additional onus of proof of satisfactorily explaining the source in the hands of the creditor, would not apply if the creditor is a well-regulated entity, i.e., it is a Venture Capital Fund, Venture Capital Company registered with SEBI. This amendment has taken effect from 1st April, 2023 and accordingly applies in relation to the assessment year 2023-24 and subsequent assessment years. The year before us is AY 2021-22 thus this amendment is not applicable and as has been held by the hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Vrindavan farms (supra), when the assessee had filed all the details, the burden of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor stood discharged by the assessee. 28. As observed above, the requirement of explaining 'Source' of 'Source' in respect of loans is applicable from A.Y. 2023-24 and subsequent years. Reliance in this regard is placed on Delhi ITAT decision dated 31/05/2022 in the case of M/s Mall Hotels Ltd. V. CIT (ITA No....