Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” : PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 arise against the CIT(A)-9, Pune’s order dated 17.10.2019, passed in case No.PN/CIT(A)7-trf.from/CIT(A)-9 trf. In/10083/17- 18-124, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“In short the Act”].
2. Heard both the parties. The assessee’s paper book(s) stands perused.
2 I.T.A.No.82/PUN/2020 M/s. Mishra Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Pune.
The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action disallowing/adding unsecured loans of Rs.3.9 lakhs and Rs.4.9 lakhs, totalling to Rs.8,80,000/- received from Smt. Geeta Singh and Shri S.N. Awatade, respectively, as unexplained cash credits lacking genuineness/creditworthiness as per the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion dated 30.12.2008 and upheld in the CIT(A)'s lower appellate findings.
Learned Authorised Representative has not only filed a detailed paper book of case laws running into 48 pages but also section 131 statements of the above said parties i.e., Smt. Geeta Singh and Shri S.N. Awatade along with his submissions dated 05.12.2022 that the latter party has also been repaid the impugned sum through banking channel. Shri Ganoo vehemently argued that neither the foregoing twin creditors had even been suggested of having provided accommodation entries to this assessee during section 131 process nor there is any clinching evidence contrary to the same and, therefore, this taxpayer is deemed to have discharged his onus of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan amounts to the tune of 3 I.T.A.No.82/PUN/2020 M/s. Mishra Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Pune. Rs.8,80,000/-. He has also placed reliance on the following case laws :
late Rajinder Pershad, reptd. By LRs vs. Smt. Dershan Devi [2001] suppl (1) SCR 442.
Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT & another [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) 3. Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [Central], Calcutta [1963] 49 ITR 723 (Bom.) 4. Dy. CIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 236 ITR 360 (Guj.)
4.1. Mr. Ganoo reiterated the assessee’s stand throughout that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making the impugned addition(s) in issue.
Learned DR has placed strong reliance on both the lower authorities respective discussions in making sec.68 unexplained cash credits addition of Rs.8,80,000/- in dispute.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and find no merit in assessee’s arguments. There could be hardly any dispute that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decisions Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971]
4 I.T.A.No.82/PUN/2020 M/s. Mishra Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Pune. 82 ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. [2019] 412 ITR 461 (SC), inter alia, hold that any evidence tendered in income tax proceedings has to be considered in the light of human probabilities, after removing all blinkers and mere filing of documentary evidence does not mean that the foregoing three parameters of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness, and more particularly, the latter two, stand discharged. We keep in mind the same and note from a perusal of both these parties’ respective statements dated 26th and 29th December, 2008 that they could not explain source of the impugned loans given to the assessee in the relevant previous year. The Assessing Officer appears to have put specific queries to both of them asking for the supportive evidence for the purpose of explaining their capacity to lend such amounts to the assessee. It is, thus clear that both these parties have failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness in their respective statements so far as the assessee’s unsecured loans coming from them are concerned. The assessee’s endeavor to prove genuineness of the impugned loan as the basis of repayment evidences, does not form sufficient reason to delete the impugned addition. We thus reject the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground.
5 I.T.A.No.82/PUN/2020 M/s. Mishra Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Pune.
So far as the learned counsel’s vehement contentions in light of the foregoing judicial precedents are concerned, we note that the hon’ble apex court in the case of Rajinder Pershad (supra) was not dealing of instance of income tax proceedings which are not governed by the strict procedures of evidence law. The latter three decisions quoted do not apply in the given facts and circumstances of the case once the assessee has failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness of the impugned cash credits. We thus affirm the learned lower authorities action in making the impugned addition in assessee’s hands.
This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th December, 2022.