Case Law Details
Smt. Jagmohan Kaur Bajwa Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
In the instant case the entries relating to the advances received from Shri Hardev Singh and his son Shri Maninder Singh Sahi from Canada were recorded in the books of accounts and the assessee also explained that this amount was received as an advance for making the investment in the property by the said persons and the assessee was engaged in the property business. The A.O. therefore was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 69A of the Act particularly when the entries were recorded in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee and the explanation relating to the purpose of receiving the advances was given, identity of the person from whom amount was received, was not in doubt, the entries were through banking channel and it is not the case of the A.O. that the assessee went to Canada then put his money in the account of the depositor i.e; Shri Hardev Singh and Shri Maninder Singh Sahi which was remitted back, therefore, the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified particularly when the credit of Rs. 19,00,000/- in the similar circumstances from Shri Hardev Singh had been accepted but the advance amounting to Rs. 99,84,046/- received from his son Shri Maninder Singh Sahi was doubted and added to the income of the assessee. In our opinion the A.O. was not justified in blowing hot and cold in the same wind pipe.
On a similar issue the ITAT Chandigarh Bench “B” Chandigarh in ITA No. 825/Chd/2007 for the A.Y. 2004-05 in the case of Shri Ashok Kumar Prop. M/s Shree Shankerjee Rice & Genl. Mills, Sangrur Vs. ACIT, Circle, Sangrur vide order dt. 18/11/2009 held as under:
19. The onus on the assessee in respect of any cash loan received during the year is to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions u/s 68 ofhte Act. The assessee before us has discharged his onus of complying with the three conditions in respect of loan received during the year. The identity of the person being father of the assessee stands established in view of the statement recorded during the course of assessment proceedings. The credit worthiness of the person is also established by the series of evidence filed, wherein in addition to the agriculture income earned by him, the father of assessee has shown the receipt of money by way of return of loans, which were advanced as per registered mortgage deed, placed before us in the paper book. Further, the said amount then being transferred to the bank account of the father of the assessee from where the cheques have been issued to the propriety concern of the assessee establishes the genuineness of transaction. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the genuineness of transactions stands established. The maounts have been advanced through account payee cheques and we find no merit in the addition being made on this account. Their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Chuni Lal [211 ITR (8T) 11] had held that cash credits received through bank account of wife, son and daughter in law could not be added unless it is proved that they were benamidars of the assessee. In the facts of present case, father of assessee has proved the availability of cash in hands. The requirement of law is not to prove the source of source of cash credit. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs. 35 lakhs credited to the books of the assessee, being on account of loan received from the father of the assessee. Thus the grounds No. 8 & 9 raised by the assessee are allowed.”
9.4 In the present case also the assessee furnished the details relating to the source of advance received by him, the amount in question was received from Shri Maninder Singh Sahi S/o Shri Hardev Singh of Canada which was received through banking channel, the assessee furnished all the details and informed the address of the person from whom the amount was received and also requested the A.O. to summon the person if there was any doubt. But the A.O. had not taken any step for issuance of the summon under section 131 of the Act, therefore the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
