Case Law Details
Mohan Lal Vs JCIT (ITAT Jaipur)
Magistrate had convicted the assessee on the complaint filed U/s 138 of the N.I. Act by Shri Aditya Kumar Sharma but that does not ipso facto mean that assessee has taken or accepted any loan or deposit or any specified sum in cash from the said Aditya Kumar Sharma.
The A.O. was under an obligation to make necessary independent enquiry in this respect but the A.O. has not even called the said person i.e. Shri Aditya Kumar Sharma who has lodged complaint case against the assessee and even no opportunity to cross examine the said Aditya Kumar Sharma was ever given to the assessee.
The only conclusion drawn by the A.O. with regard to genuineness of the transaction was merely based on the ground that the Magistrate in a separate complaint filed U/s 138 of the N.I. Act had convicted the assessee but the said decision of the Magistrate cannot ipso facto leads to the conclusion that the assessee had taken or accepted any loan or deposit in contravention of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act, therefore, in our view, the A.O. was under an obligation to independently prove by carrying out necessary enquires or bringing on record evidence that the cash loan was taken by the assessee from Shri Aditya Kumar Sharma in contravention of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act.
Accordingly the A.O. as well as the CIT(A) fell in error by merely relying upon the copies of the order of the Magistrate regarding conviction of the accused, more particularly when there was no independent evidence or material brought on record by the A.O. to the effect that the cash loan was taken or accepted by the assessee in contravention of Section 269SS of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
