DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEBABAD vs. TECHNO INDUSTRIES, AHMEDABAD

Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and the materials on record, deleted the addition.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition u/s 69A of the Act in the absence of any satisfactory explanation and cogent documentary evidence relating to the impugned loans/advances.

The Ld. AR, before us, submitted that, as rightly observed by the Ld. CIT(A), the loan in question was taken during FY 2011-12 and the amount repaid during the relevant year was through banking channels, duly supported by ledger accounts, bank statements, and TDS certificates on interest payment. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer made the addition solely on the basis of generalized statements made by various third parties in the course of search proceedings in unrelated cases, and no specific reference to the assessee was found in those statements. The Ld. Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 3– AR also submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to provide copies of the relied upon statements or documentary evidence to the assessee, nor was any opportunity of cross-examination afforded to the assessee, despite specific requests made. The Ld. AR also argued that the denial of cross- examination constitutes violation of principles of natural justice, and hence the reliance on such third-party statements without confrontation was not sustainable in law.

The Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has diligently provided all necessary documents, including ledger accounts, bank statements, and TDS challans, to substantiate the legitimacy of the transaction. It is crucial to emphasize that the onus to prove the transaction as bogus lies with the Assessing Officer. However, it is evident that the Assessing Officer has failed to meet this burden. The Ld. CIT(A) held in both the show cause and Assessment orders, the Assessing Officer solely relied on statements from various individuals and findings from the Investigation Wing without providing concrete evidence to support the allegation of the transaction being bogus. Having gone through the facts on record, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2.  थ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु / Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीयितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल/ Guard file.