TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1686
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved were common, all the appeals were heard together. Both the parties also argued them together raising similar arguments on these issues. Accordingly, for the sake of brevity, we dispose all the appeals by this consolidated order. 2. We first take up the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2010-11 in ITA. No. 6384/Mum/2018. Briefly stated, for AY 2010-11, the assessee had filed return of income on 02.08.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 45,60,170/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued by the AO. The income-tax assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act by order dated 21.03.2013, wherein the AO made the following additions viz., (a) deemed rental income of Rs. 10,98,908/- on account of vacant residential house property u/s 23 of the Act, (b) deemed dividend of Rs. 22,05,935/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and, (c) addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 22,58,21,128/- by way of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) who partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is now in appeal before us ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has derived rental income from the property situated at Zaveri Bazar under the head income from "House Property". The other two properties were vacant/self-occupied. According to the AO, as per the Section 23 of the Act, since the assessee owned more than one self-occupied house property, the assessee was required to offer the annual value of the second house property by way of deemed rent u/s 23 of the Act. The AO accordingly required the assessee to offer his explanation and choose which of the two vacant properties i.e. properties at Worli and Juhu, which he wants to choose as his self-occupied property. Since the AO did not receive any response from the assessee, he treated as Worli property as self-occupied property and accordingly proceeded to compute the annual value of the Juhu Property. According to the AO, 8.5% of the investment in the property was a reasonable annual letable value. He thus worked out the gross annual value at Rs. 15,69,869/- i.e. 8.5% of Rs. 1,84,69,045/-. After allowing standard deduction of 30% u/s 24(a) of the Act, the AO computed and assessed deemed rental income of Rs. 10,98,908/- under the head 'House Property'. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccordingly the Ld. CIT (A) had directed the AO to re-compute the taxable annual value of the other vacant property at Worli. To this, the Ld. AR of the assessee brought to the notice of the Bench that, pursuant to the directions issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the AO vide his order passed u/s 250/143(3) of the Act dated 22.10.2018 had computed the annual letting value of Worli Property at Rs. 2,43,255/- being 8.5% of Rs. 28,61,827/-. After giving allowance for standard deduction @ 30% u/s 24(a) of the Act, the taxable value was computed at Rs. 1,70,279/-. The Ld. AR further submitted that this order dated 22.10.2018 passed u/s 250/143(3) of the Act has been accepted by the assessee in as much as no appeal has been filed against the aforesaid addition retained u/s 23 of the Act. The Ld. CIT, DR was unable to controvert these admitted facts. We do not see any merit in this ground raised by the Revenue and therefore, the same is accordingly dismissed. 5. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised by the Revenue is against the action of the Ld. CIT (A) admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee in terms of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. It is noted that the assessee was unable t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant that he required considerable time to compile the documentary evidences called for by the AO as they had to be gathered from third parties and therefore the time available with him to comply with the requirements of the notice issued by the AO was inadequate is considered to be acceptable considering the facts stated above. In this regard, it needs to be borne in mind that the tax liability sought to be fastened on the appellant on account of the addition made u/s 68 of the Act on the ground of non-furnishing of supporting evidences is of such a high magnitude that the admission of additional evidence which has a direct bearing on the same is essential in the interest of justice and fair play. Hence, having regard to the facts of the case, it is considered that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the evidences called for by the A.O. during the assessment proceedings within the meaning of Rule 46A(1)(b) and the additional evidence filed by the appellant is therefore admitted." 6. According to us, the Ld. CIT (A) has exercised the vested discretion under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, [herein after the Rules] and further, the Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vide letter dated 04.01.2018 and the AO furnished his second remand report dated 12.04.2018. Taking into account the submissions, details and evidences furnished by the assessee and the remand reports of the AO, the Ld. CIT (A) first noted that out of total addition of Rs. 22,58,21,128/-, sum of Rs. 2,34,97,924/- comprised of opening balance of loan creditors which was brought forward from earlier years. According to Ld. CIT(A), Section 68 of the Act only applied to sum which is found credited in the books of an assessee during the previous year for which no explanation has been furnished or explanation furnished is found to be false. Since the opening balance of Rs. 2,34,97,924/- represented monies received in earlier years and not in the relevant FY 2009-10, the Ld. CIT (A) held that Section 68 had no application in relation thereto and therefore deleted the same by observing as under: "28. Based on examination of the additional evidence and further evidences furnished to the AO during the remand proceedings, the A.O. has confirmed that out of the unsecured loans of Rs. 22,58,21,128/- added to the total income u/s. 68 of the Act, the loans actually taken during the year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year 2009-10 and the corresponding previous year 2008-09. He submits that on this short ground, the first substantial question of law, is liable to be answered in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the respondent-Revenue. ........... 9. From the plain reading of the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act, it does appear that where any sum is found to be credited in the books of Account maintained for any previous year and there is no proper explanation for such credit, the sum so credited can be charged to the income tax as the income of the assessee of "that previous year". 10. In the present case, the material on record indicates that the Assessing Officer has relied upon the credits for the financial year 2006-07. However, the sum so credited, in terms of such credit, is sought to be brought to tax as the income of the appellant-assessee, for the assessment year 2009-10, which means for the previous year 2008-09, in terms of the definition under section 3 of the IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ading [Prop : Sanjay Kothari]. According to AO therefore, these loans remained unproved. The relevant comments offered by the AO in his first remand report were as follows: Sr. No. Name of the lender Loan Received during the year (Rs.) Comments of the A.O. 1. Aditya R. Seth 1,25,000 The assessee submitted ledger confirmation of the said party only. As no other evidences were furnished, the creditworthiness has not been established. 2. Deepak Kumar HUF 7,28,667 On perusal of the confirmation, a balance of Rs. 7,28,667/- is outstanding in the name of the assessee. Also, on perusal of the audited balance sheet, an amount of Rs. 7,28,667/- is appearing in the name of the assessee under the assets side. However, the source of the funds in the hands of Deepak Kumar HUF is unproved. 3. Gurukripa Exports 2,00,00,000 On perusal of the confirmation, a balance of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- is outstanding in the name of Mohit Kamboj. The Balance sheet shows total Capital of Shri Sanjay Kumar Panwar at Rs. 2,00,000/- only, the Sundry Creditors are at Rs. 25,20,06,711/- and Sundry Debtors at Rs. 6,42,29,138/-, Loans and advances at Rs. 17,15,90,801/-. No de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Prop. Sanjay Kothari) from which the loans has been given to the assessee is not clear. The assessee also has failed to produce the ITR acknowledgement and copy of bank statement of the concerned party reflecting the said transactions. Total 20,23,23,204 11. To this, the assessee furnished the necessary evidences i.e. Income Tax (IT) Acknowledgments, loan confirmation and bank statements of the parties mentioned at (3), (6) & (7) above, under the cover of letter dated 04.01.2018. These additional evidences were also admitted and forwarded by the Ld. CIT (A) to the AO for his comments. By his report dated 12.04.2018, the AO acknowledged that the requisite details (not filed earlier) were submitted by the assessee, but according to him the source of funds in the hands of these loan creditors remained unproved. The relevant comments offered by the AO (second remand report) are as under: "(a) The assessee has submitted the complete set of balance sheet of M/s. Gurukripa Exports as on 31.03.2010 along with the breakup of the loan and advances which was not submitted during the original remand proceedings. As per the break-up of loans and advances, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the A.O. that the identity of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the loan transactions have been substantiated by the appellant through documentary evidences in respect of the 6 loan creditors. 13. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the AO had only adversely commented on the creditworthiness of the loan creditors in as much as he had stated that the source of funds in the hands of loan creditors were either unproven or unclear. It is noted that, this grievance of the AO was addressed by the Ld. CIT (A) at Para 38 of his appellate order, wherein he himself examined the source of funds/ bank statements of the loan creditors and thereafter concluded that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the nature and source of credits received from these six (6) loan creditors. The Ld. CIT (A) accordingly deleted the addition of Rs. 20,21,98,204/- being the sum of loans received from these six parties. 14. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT, DR for the Revenue argued that not only the creditworthiness of the loan creditor was unproven but according to him the genuineness of the transaction was not satisfactorily established by the assessee and therefore he urged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "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:" Section 68 - As amended by Finance Act, 2022 "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: ...... Provided that where the sum so credited consists of loan or borrowing or any such amount, by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless- (a) the person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such assessee also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....viso to Section 68 of the Act with retrospective effect nor does the proviso so introduced states that it was introduced "for removal of doubts" or that it is "declaratory". Therefore it is not open to give it retrospective effect, by proceeding on the basis that the addition of the proviso to Section 68 of the Act is immaterial and does not change the interpretation of Section 68 of the Act both before and after the adding of the proviso...." (ii) Pr. CIT vs. Apeak Infotech (88 Taxmann.com 695) [Bom HC]: "Similarly, the amendment to section 68 of the Act by addition of proviso was made subsequent to previous year relevant to the subject assessment year 2012-13 and cannot be invoked. It may be pointed out that this court in CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom.) has while refusing to entertain a question with regard to section 68 of the Act has held that the proviso to section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14." 19. From the above it is therefore amply clear that the requirement to s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant." To this, the Ld. CIT, DR in his submissions has stated that, the loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from M/s Mumbadevi Bullion is not appearing in the bank statement. In response, the Ld. AR brought to our notice that, the cheque issued by the lender was encashed at a later date and the receipt was appearing in the bank statement on 16.04.2009. The Ld. CIT, DR further contended that the repayment of loan of Rs. 24,00,000/- did not appear in bank statement and therefore was not carried out through bank channel. In this regard as well, the Ld. AR took us through the bank statement of M/s Mumbadevi Bullion, which was placed at Page 1 of his rebuttal, which clearly evidenced that the repayment of loan was received through proper banking channel. The Ld. CIT, DR further questioned the cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 37.65 crores found in the bank account of the lender, which according to him raised doubt on the source of funds advanced to the assessee. The Ld. AR pointed out that the lender was engaged in the business of dealing in gold, bullion, jewellery etc. having turnover in excess of Rs. 52.76 crores. Having regard to the nature of trade, the Ld. AR submitted that it was und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the facts and circumstances of this case, and are therefore rejected. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s above findings qua the creditworthiness of this lender. (iii) Gurukripa Exports - Rs. 2,00,00,000/- It is noted that the Ld. CIT (A) in his order had elaborately examined the bank statements/ financials of this lender and had found it to be credit-worthy, by observing as follows: "The outstanding loan of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- in the name of the appellant is found to be duly reflected in the balance sheet of the loan creditor as on 31.03.2010 under the head 'Loans & Advances'. Apart from the capital of Rs. 20,00,000/-, the balance sheet of the loan creditor as on 31.03.2010 shows sundry creditors of Rs. 25,20,06,711/- on the liabilities side as against the sundry debtors of Rs. 6,42,29,138/- on the assets side. The sources for the loan advanced to the appellant are out of the sundry creditors as evident from the balanced sheet. Account statement of the loan creditor shows that amounts have been received through RTGS or account payee cheques prior to advancing loans to the appellant and no cash deposits are found in the bank acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot been disputed by him. It was further brought to our notice that the assessee had received loan from this company in the earlier AYs as well wherein also its identity, creditworthiness and genuineness was accepted by the AO's predecessors and the only adverse inference drawn was u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld. AR has also rightly pointed out that, if this addition is upheld, then it would amount to double addition of the same sum. When this fact was pointed out to the Ld. CIT, DR, he has also not seriously disputed the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A), and therefore we are not interfering with the same. (v) Sai Silver - Rs. 96,00,000/- It is noted that the Ld. CIT (A) in his order after examining the bank statements/ financials of this lender upheld its creditworthiness, by observing as follows: "The outstanding loan of Rs. 96,00,000/- in the name of the appellant is found to be duly reflected in the balance sheet of the loan creditor as on 31.03.2010 under the head 'Loans & Advances' on the assets side. Apart from the capital of Rs. 2,40,137/-, the balance sheet of the loan creditor as on 31.03.2010 shows Advance against goods of Rs. 1,86,00,000/- und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s' on the assets side. The balance sheet of the loan creditor as on 31.03.2010 shows sundry creditors of Rs. 8,99,44,866/- on the liabilities side as against the sundry debtors of Rs. 96,67,289/- on the assets side. The sources for the loan advanced to the appellant are out of the said sundry creditors as evident from the balance sheet itself. Further, the bank account statement of the loan creditor shows that amounts have been received through RTGS or account payee cheques prior to advancing loans to the appellant and no cash deposits are found in the bank account prior to advancing the loans to the appellant." 21. At the time of hearing and in his written submissions, the Ld. CIT, DR had raised doubts on creditworthiness of the above lenders on the premise that they had filed returns of income declaring meagre income and that their own capital funds did not inspire any confidence regarding their capacity to advance loans to the assessee. The Ld. AR first pointed out that this was never the case of the AO before the Ld. CIT (A) and therefore this new argument raised by the Revenue should not be accepted. Alternatively, the Ld. AR contended that, if it is case of the Revenue tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enuineness of transaction through account payee cheque has been established." 23. The Ld. AR has rightly relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd (64 taxmann.com 329) as well. In the decided case the assessee had received unsecured loans in the year in question. In the course of assessment, the AO requisitioned the details of the loans received by the assessee. From the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that few loan creditors had returned loss and their source of advancing loans were other bodies corporate who had also returned miniscule taxable income in their income-tax returns. The AO therefore doubted the creditworthiness of the lenders. The AO accordingly made addition u/s 68 of the Act. On appeal, the Hon'ble High Court deleted the addition and held that the onus of the assessee is 'to the extent of his proving the source through which he has received the cash credit.' The Hon'ble High Court further held that, the AO has ample 'freedom' to make inquiry 'not only into the source(s) of the creditor, but also of his (creditor's) sub-creditors'. The assessee however wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that though apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the Assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of his creditor, the burden of the Assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions as well as the creditworthiness of the creditor must remain confined to the transactions, which have taken place between the Assessee and the creditor. What follows, as a corollary, is that it is not the burden of the Assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions between his creditor and sub-creditors nor is it the burden of the Assessee to prove that the sub-creditor had the creditworthiness to advance the cash credit to the creditor from whom the cash credit has been, eventually, received by the Assessee. It, therefore, further logically follows that the creditor's creditworthiness has to be judged vis-a-vis the transactions, which have taken place between the Assessee and the creditor, and it is not the business of the Assessee to find out the source of money of his creditor or of the genuineness of the transactions, which took between the creditor and sub-creditor and/or credi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this the ITAT construed the intentions of the Assessee as being mala fide. 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.O. had any doubt about the material placed on record, which was largely bank statements of the creditors and their income tax returns, it could gather the necessary information from the sources to which the said information was attributable to. No such exercise had been conducted by the A.O. In any event what both the A.O. and the ITAT lost track of was that it was dealing with the assessment of the company, i.e., the recipient of the loan and not that of its directors and shareholders or that of the subcreditors. If it had any doubts with regard to their credit worthiness, the revenue could always bring it to tax in the hands of the creditors and/or sub-creditors. [See CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) and CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC)]." 15. In view of the legal position explained in the above decisions, the Court holds that as far as the present case is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree requirements, as noted above. It was not required for the assessee to explain the sources of the source. In other words, he was not required to explain the sources of the money provided by the creditor Smt. Savitri Thakur i.e. Shri Rajendra Bahadur Singh and Smt. Sarojini Thakur. 16. Considering the above, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 14 lakhs to the total income of the assessee as undisclosed cash credit under section 68 of the Act." 25. The Ld. AR's reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Apex Therm Packaging (P) Ltd reported in 42 taxmann.com 473 is also found to be of much relevance. In the decided case, the assessee had furnished complete details of loan creditors along with their PAN, financial statements, loan confirmations, bank statements etc. The AO however added the entire loan received u/s 68 of the Act. On appeal the Ld. CIT (A) allowed the assessee's appeal which was also affirmed by this Tribunal. On appeal by the Revenue, the Hon'ble High Court observed that, when the full particulars, inclusive of the confirmation with name, address, PAN, IT returns,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed confirmation, address and PAN Numbers and hence the assessee had also discharged the initial onus cast upon the assessee with respect to the two creditors. He has further noted that the loans were received through cheques and the loan account were duly reflected in the balance sheet of lenders CIT (A) has further held once the onus was fulfilled by the assessee, it was for the Assessing Officer to examine and bring any material on record which may help in rebutting the onus of assessee. The Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record in its support CIT (A) while deleting the addition has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Orissa Corpn. Ltd. 153 ITR 78. Before us, nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to controvert the findings of CIT(A). Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of N.R. Portfolio (supra). We however find that the ratio of the aforesaid Delhi High Court decision are distinguishable on facts and therefore cannot be applied to the facts of the present c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial year and the Department has accepted the repayment of loan without probing into it. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when the ITAT has held that the matter is not required to be remanded as no other view would be possible, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the ITAT. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeal. Hence, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed." 27. For the elaborate reasons as discussed in the foregoing, we therefore hold that the additions made u/s 68 of the Act in AY 2010-11 was untenable both on facts as well as in law and was, therefore, rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground No. 4 of the Revenue stands dismissed. 28. We now take up the appeal in ITA No. 4285/Mum/2019 for AY 2010-11. Briefly stated, the AO had reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and framed the re-assessment order on 30.11.2017 for AY. 2010-11. According to AO, the assessee had received advances aggregating to Rs. 25,92,36,224/- during the relevant year. Out of this amount, his predecessor had already made an addition of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....responsibility of proving the identity, genuinely and creditworthiness of the party in whose name the credits are found it his books During the course of re-assessment proceedings the appellant had duly submitted the details in respect of the three parties i.e. ledger confirmation, Bank Statements, ITR Acknowledgement and Audited Financials to discharge the onus. Surprisingly the AO has recorded that the same are not acceptable and concluded the assessment. She has issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to three parties and granted only 5 days to respond. Five days time is too short for a third party to receive the AO's letter and respond. It is also seen from the copies of the replies filed by the assessee during the appeal proceedings that she parties have responded on 24.11.2016 with all the documents asked for by the AO. However the AO did not consider the same, though the order was passed on 30.11.2016, which does not reflect well on the AO. All the three parties which the AO sought to verify through 133(6) notices are of the same group, therefore, even if the replies were filed by the same representatives, there was nothing wrong. Therefore the action of the AO in rejecting the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee during the previous year and either the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits or the explanation furnished by the assessee in the opinion of the AO is not satisfactory. b) The opinion of the AO for not accepting the explanation offered by the assessee as not satisfactory is required to be formed objectively with reference to the material on record. c) Courts are of the firm view that the evidence produced by the assessee can not be brushed aside in a casual manner d) The burden of proof is not static. The initial burden lies on the assessee to establish the identity and the creditworthiness of the creditor as well as the genuineness of transaction. e) The identity of creditors can be established by either furnishing their PANs or assessment orders. The genuineness of the transaction can be proved if it was shown that the money was received by a/c payee cheque. Creditworthiness of the lender can be established by sound financials. 3.7 It is examined whether the appellant has been able to discharge the onus placed. On him u/s 68 of the Act in the light of the aforesaid legal' principals or pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of the respondent and invoked Section 68 of the Act to treat the amount of Rs. 7.53 crores i.e. the aggregate of the issue price and the premium on the shares issued as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Section 68 of the Act. This addition was deleted by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal, Before the High Court, the department contended that the proviso to Section 68 of the Act which was introduced with effect from Ist April, 2013 would apply in the facts of the present case even for A.Y. 2008-09. The basis of the above submission was that the. de hors the proviso also the requirements as set out therein would have to be satisfied. HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal: (i) We find that the proviso to Section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus it would be effective only from the Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject Assessment Year. In fact, before the Tribunal, it was not even the case of the Revenue that Section 68 of the Act as in force during the subject years has to be read/understood as though the proviso added subsequently effective only from 1st April, 2013 was its nor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore his identity and genuineness stood substantiated. The bank statements of Mr. Deepak Kamboj showed that the amounts were lent through banking channel and it was also shown that he was assessed to income-tax. Hence, the assessee discharged his initial burden of substantiating the creditworthiness of his father. The other two parties were (ii) KBJ Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. (iii) KBJ Developers Ltd., which belonged to the same group of the assessee. It is noted that the assessee was drawing salary from KBJ Jewellery Pvt. Ltd whose genuineness has not been disputed by the AO. Further, M/s KBJ Developers Ltd. was an existing lender from whom the assessee had obtained loans in the earlier years as well. It was pointed out that, in the income-tax assessments which were completed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10, the AO's predecessor had not doubted the identity and creditworthiness of this lender or the genuineness of the transaction. Moreover both these lenders are assessed under the jurisdiction of the same AO and therefore we agree with the Ld. CIT (A) that nothing prevented the AO to examine the source of funds of these lenders in their respective assessments. According....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said provision had no application to amounts brought forward from earlier years and therefore the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the opening balance of Rs. 31,85,28,658/-. 31. Heard both the parties. Following our conclusions drawn in Paras 8 & 9 above while adjudicating the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 6384/Mum/2018 for AY 2010-11, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 31,85,28,658/-, which represented monies received in earlier years and not in the relevant FY 2011-12. 32. In respect of the balance sum of Rs. 76,22,21,849/-, the Ld. CIT (A) noted that these loans were received from seven (7) loan creditors. After examining the details furnished by the assessee, the AO in his remand report noted that, although these seven (7) loan creditors had furnished the requisite details but according to the AO, the source of their funds out of which they advanced loans remained unproven. After examining the remand report of the AO and the submissions & details furnished by the assessee, it is noted that the Ld. CIT (A) held that the correctness of the documentary evidences viz., loan confirmation, ledger, financial statements, Income Tax Acknowle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itors of Rs. 70,47,54,747/- on the liabilities side as against the sundry debtors of Rs. 37,95,35,859/- on the assets side. The sources for the loan advanced to the appellant are therefore evident from the balance sheet itself. Further, the bank account statement of the loan creditor shows that amounts have been received through RTGS or account payee cheques prior to advancing loans to the appellant and no cash deposits are found in bank account prior to advancing the loans to the appellant. 2 Dev Jewels (Proprietor: Shri Dev Gupta) 13,59,16,572 The outstanding loan of Rs. 13,58,71,572/- in the name of the appellant is found to be duly reflected in the balance sheet of the loan creditor as on 31.03.2012 under the head 'Loans & Advances (Asset)'. Apart from the capital of Rs. 9,86,965/-, the balance sheet of the loan creditor as on 31.03.2012 shows sundry creditors of Rs. 65,62,37,971/- on the liabilities side as against the sundry debtors of Rs. 39,68,57,090/- on the assets side. The sources for the loan advanced to the appellant are therefore evident from the balance sheet itself, Further, the bank account statement of the loan creditor shows that amounts have be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the balance sheet of the loan creditor as on 31.03.2012 shows sundry creditors of Rs. 37,18,18,987/- and loans of Rs. 15,51,62,540/- on the liabilities side. The Sources for the loan advanced to the appellant are therefore evident from the balance sheet Itself. Further, the bank account statement of the loan creditor shows that amounts have been received through RTGS or account payee cheques prior to advancing loans to the appellant and no cash deposits are found in the bank account prior to advancing the loans to the appellant. 6 Real Uttam Builders & Developers 3,00,00,000 The outstanding loan of Rs. 8,00,00,000/- in the name of the appellant (which includes the opening balance of Rs. 5,00,00,000/-) is found to be duly reflected in the balance sheet of the loan creditor as on 31.03.2012 under the head 'Loans & Advances'. Apart from the capital of Rs. 69,11,454/-, the balance sheet of the loan creditor as on 31.03.2012 shows sundry creditors of Rs. 2,22,40,891/- and unsecured loans of Rs. 9,11,85,350/- on the liabilities side as against the sundry debtors of Rs. 3,26,15,856/- on the assets side. The bank account statement of the loan creditor shows that amount has been....