ITO 25(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. BELA SURESH AGARWAL, MUMBAI

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 06.10.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2007-08.

The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:

The short facts of the case are as under:

The Ld. D.R. submitted before me that the statement of Shri Rajendra Jain who was giving accommodation entries to the assessee was recorded during the search operation in which he admitted that they are issuing accommodation bills or unsecured loans. Therefore, purchases or unsecured loans made by assessee from M/s Sparsh Exports P. Ltd. is not genuine but only accommodation entry was provided by Shri Rajendra Jain group. Therefore, document including loan confirmation and payment through banking channel do not prove the genuineness.

The Ld. A.R. Ms. Dinkle Hariya had relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Reliance Corporation in to 1071/M/2017 decided on 12.04.2017 wherein the Tribunal has held that the oral statement of a third party recorded by Search authorities which was never placed to be confronted by assessee and no documentary evidence was supplied to assessee, could not be considered in making addition u/s. 68 on account of alleged accommodation entries. Moreover, she relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

Having heard both the parties, I found from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the ground that the assessee has explained and proved the nature and source of credit in the books of account of the assessee. During the course of hearing, the assessee has submitted the name and address of the creditors, amount borrowed, mode of receipt, loan confirmation along with bank statement and copy of the return, copy of PAN card, acknowledgement of return for A.Y. 2007-08 of loan creditor and affidavit from Director of loan creditor. The Ld. CIT(A) verifying the above

I find that this case is fully covered by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders - 256 ITR 360 wherein it is held as under: “The decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT vs Rohini Builders - [256 ITR 360] is held that all the loans were received by the assessee by account payee cheques and the repayment of loans have also been made by account payee cheques along with interest in relation to those loans and that the assessing officer having allowed the interest claimed/paid by the assessee in relation to the cash credits cannot treat the cash credits as not genuine. It held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus which lay on it in terms of Section 68 by proving the identity of the creditors by giving their complete addresses, GIR nos./PAN nos. and copies of assessment orders wherever readily available and that it has also proved the capacity of the creditors by showing that the amounts were received by the assessee by account payee cheques drawn from the bank accounts of the creditors. It held that the assessee is not expected to prove the genuineness of the cash deposited in the bank accounts of those creditors because under law the assessee can be asked to prove the source of the credits in its books of accounts but not the source of the source.”

Further, it is supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Namichand Kothari vs. CIT – 264 ITR 254 (Gau). During the course of hearing, the Ld. D.R. did not produce any evidence contrary to the finding of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, I confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.