FACT ENTERPRISE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8 (1), MUMBAI

The assessee is aggrieved with that order and has preferred the solitary ground that addition confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is not justified.

Aggrieved assessee has preferred this appeal before us. Several opportunities were granted to the assessee. None appeared on behalf of the assessee neither request for adjournment was. In view of this, we do not have any other option but to dispose of the appeal of the assessee on the merits as per information available on record.

The learned Departmental Representative heavily relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that when the assessee has failed to discharge its initial onus under Section 68 of the Act, the lower authorities have confirmed the addition.

We have carefully considered the contention raised by the learned Departmental Representative and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that with respect to four parties from whom assessee has taken loan of Rs 467,10,000/–, assessee could not discharge its initial onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of those parties as well as the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, as the sum was credited in the books of accounts during the year, the learned Assessing Officer made addition of the above sum under Section 68 of the Act. Before the learned CIT (A), nothing was produced and therefore the addition was confirmed. Thus, before the lower authorities only the confirmation without Permanent Account Number or any other information proving the identity, creditworthiness of those parties and genuineness