Case Law Details
Society For Institute For Professional Studies Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi)
It is well settled Law that assessee need not to prove source of the source. We rely upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dwarkadhish Investment P. Ltd., [2011] 330 ITR 298 (Del.) (HC), Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Zafar Ahmed & Co. 30 taxman.com 269 (All.).
The A.O. entirely on different reasons that there is a common Director in 03 companies and common address disbelieved the explanation of assessee. It may not be relevant criteria to decide the issue under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. While considering the issue under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the A.O. shall have to consider the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. Since all the creditors are assessed to tax, therefore, their identity cannot be disputed by the A.O. All the loans are given through banking channel and the creditors have sufficient bank balance in their bank accounts and net worth as per their balance-sheets. Therefore, creditworthiness of the creditors is also not in doubt. Therefore, assessee has been able to prove the genuineness of the transaction in the matter because the amounts in question have been returned subsequently which were subjected to interest and TDS payment on such loans. The assessee has been able to discharge onus under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, the A.O. has not brought any evidence against the assessee on record to disbelieve the documentary evidences. Whatever enquiry was conducted through Income Tax Inspector does not appear to have been confronted to the assessee or explanation of assessee have been called for. Therefore, such material cannot be used in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs., CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC). Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances above, we do not find any justification to sustain the addition. In view of the above findings, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition. In view of the above, the other contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee are left with academic discussion only and we do not propose to decide the same. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar, Dated 28.03.2017, for the A.Y. 2010-2011, on the following grounds :
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
