TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The notice issued u/s.148 is bad in law. 2. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in upholding the addition of Rs. 61,75,297/- on account of alleged fictions loan transaction. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise. 3. At the outset, it was submitted that the solitary issue in the present appeal related to addition made to the income of the assessee on account of alleged accommodation entry of unsecured loan taken during the year amounting to Rs. 61,75,297/-. It was pointed out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of .various persons/entities were also found in possession of accommodation entry provider duo. During recording of their statements and by filing affidavits, various dummy directors admitted that they were merely signing documents on directions of accommodation entry provider duo. They admitted of being involved in providing accommodation entries of LTCG, Loss, and Unsecured Loans etc. Data analysis coupled with circumstantial evidences led to discovery that 15 BSE listed scrips have been used for generating bogus LTCG and contrived losses. During investigation, sample trail of funds was also established. The duo also admitted being involved in providing accommodation entries including bogus LTCG and contrived losses. As per information, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, and added the same to the income of the assessee. He contended that the ld.CIT(A) though did not controvert the finding of the AO that no such fictitious loan was found to be taken by the assessee, he went a step further and contended that onus was on the assessee to show that it had taken loan during the year, and the assessee having not discharged the onus, therefore, the addition needed to be confirmed. In this regard, he drew our attention to the finding of the ld.CIT(A) at page 6-7 of his order as under: The observation of the Assessing Officer is that based on the investigation report, appellant is one of the beneficiary who had taken fictitious loan through the accommodation entry provider and as a result of search in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in possession of accommodation entry provider duo. During recording of their statements and by filing affidavits, various dummy directors admitted that they were merely signing documents on directions of accommodation entry provider duo. They admitted of being involved in providing accommodation entries of LTCG, Loss, and Unsecured Loans etc. Data analysis coupled with circumstantial evidences led to discovery that 15 BSE listed scrips have been used for generating bogus LTCG and contrived losses. During investigation, sample trail of funds was also established. The duo also admitted being involved in providing accommodation entries including bogus LTCG and contrived losses. As per information, the assessee was benefitted out of fictitious....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the other entry is a credit entry from Shubh Metal. Further the appellant did not furnish the name of the firm in which the appellant is a partner and the mode of receipt of remuneration and interest and share income. Since even these details are not figuring in the bank account, details reflecting the loan transaction as mentioned in the Investigation Report was also not furnished by the appellant. Further, the investigation report prepared by the investigation team was done after making many enquiries and collecting the statistical data and other details about the entry providers and observed that the appellant is one of the beneficiaries who has taken fictitious loan from the group companies of Jignesh Shah. Since the documentary evide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee, it is an admitted fact that no loan was taken by the assessee during the year. 8. In the light of the same, we completely agree with the ld.counsel for the assessee that there was no occasion, therefore, to hold that the assessee had taken fictitious or bogus loans during the year. The ld.CIT(A), we hold, is grossly unjustified in holding that onus was on the assessee to establish that it had taken loan during the year, and having failed to do so, therefore, the addition of bogus unsecured loan was rightly made by the AO. It is plain and simple law that when an allegation is levelled on any of the party, it is on the party levelling the allegations to prove its case with evidence, and only then the onus shifts on the other party....