Silicon Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)
ITAT Kolkata held that even after acceptance of fact that appellant is an entry provider, onus is on the appellant to prove that transaction was not of appellant but of somebody else’s. Accordingly, matter remanded for re-verification.
Facts- The appellant is admittedly an entry provider which fact has been admitted by Mr. Sumit Sharma, Director of the Appellant Company, before AO. The single grievance that arises from the impugned order pertains to an addition of Rs. 3,28,51,000/- added as Short-Term Capital Gain by AO and confirmed by CIT(A).
Conclusion- Held that the onus to prove that the transaction, as readily visible from the property documents being in the name of the appellant, was not of the appellant but somebody else’s, was squarely on the appellant and not on the Ld. AO for proving otherwise. In light of this it is felt that the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the fact that the appellant is an accepted entry provider, this matter needs to be remanded back to the file of Ld. AO to afford another opportunity to the appellant to conclusively prove that the impugned transaction was never his and that it belonged to someone else. For this purpose, the appellant needs to present good documentation to conclusively establish that he is not the beneficiary of the impugned transaction. This appeal is remanded back to the file of Ld. AO to re-verify the facts.
