Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
In view of the documents and evidences filed by the assessee, we are of the opinion that these are sufficient to discharge its initial onus regarding the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness as required under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee having discharged its onus, it was upon the AO to bring material or evidence to discredit the same.
In the present case, from the assessment order, it is evident that no adverse material is available with the AO. There is no allegation against any of the above 4 shareholders of doing anything wrong on record. The AO has drawn adverse inference as he did not receive reply from the 4 aforesaid shareholders in response to notice issued by him under Section 133(6).
On this issue, firstly, the Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the replies along with evidences submitted by these 4 shareholders to the AO to discredit the allegation of the AO that he did not receive reply in response to notice issued by him under Section 133(6). De horse the non-receipt of the reply, even for the sake of argument we assume that the AO has not received the reply, still the fact remains that 133(6) notice were served on these four shareholders.
