Raj Kumari Agarwal Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)
ITAT Jaipur held that assessee just needs to establish that the amount has come from the bank account of the cash-creditors. Assessee is not required to prove the source of the amount in the bank accounts of the cash creditors. Thus, addition u/s. 68 deleted since genuineness of transaction proved.
Facts- During the course of assessment proceedings AO found that assessee has shown receipt of loan from Smt. Suman Agarwal and Smt. Laxmi Agarwal. Based on evidence brought on record, AO noted that Smt. Laxmi Agarwal and Smt. Suman Agarwal do not have creditworthiness to advance the loan to the assessee. Accordingly the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- from Smt. Laxmi Agarwal and Smt. Suman Agarwal each totaling to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- shown in the books of accounts under head unsecured loan as a non genuine u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. and added to the total income of the assessee and considered taxable at the rate of 60% as provided u/s 115BBE.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that amount of cash credits have come through banking channels, the same is proved to be genuine. It is further submitted that the assessee is not required to prove the source of source. It was enough on the part of the assessee to establish that the amount has come from the bank account of the cash-creditors. The assessee is not required to prove the source of the amount in the bank accounts of the cash creditors. Thus, the genuineness of the cash-creditors stands proved beyond doubt. The addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer and so confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) directed to be deleted.
