M/S. SUBHASHREE ENTERPRISES,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-

Cuttack, dated 23.11.2015, for the assessment year 2011-12.

confirming the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act made

by the Assessing Officer.

authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the

assessee claimed to have received Rs.10,00,000/- from M/s. Epson

2 ITA No. 35/ CTK/2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

Marketing Pvt Ltd.,. The Assessing Officer observed that M/s. Epson

Marketing Pvt Ltd., received loan from Sabita Tulshyan of Rs.10 lakhs and

in turn advanced Rs.10,00,000/- to the assessee. The Assessing Officer

held that the amount received from Sabita Tulshyan by the loan creditor

company was an unknown person and the purpose of such receipts was

not explained. Therefore, he treated the loan of Rs.10 lakhs as unexplained

credit and added the same to the income of the assessee.

that the assessee received loan of Rs.10 lakhs from M/s. Epson Marketing

Pvt Ltd., The assessee filed the loan confirmation, PAN No. and other

particulars to prove the genuineness of transaction, identity of the loan

creditors and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. The assessee has

fulfilled all the three ingredients and discharged its burden u/s.68 of the

Act. The Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of Rs.10

lakhs u/s.68 of the Act on the ground that Sabita Tulshyan from whom the

loan creditor received the unsecured loan did not explain the purpose of

the receipt. He submitted that as per law, the assessee was required to

explain the source of credit of Rs.10 lakhs in his books of account and not

the source of the source. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing

Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) cannot be sustained in law and same

should be deleted.

3 ITA No. 35/ CTK/2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

orders of lower authorities.

lakhs from M/s. Epson Marketing Pvt Ltd., The Assessing Officer observed

that the loan creditor has received Rs.10 lakhs from Sabita Tulshyan, an

unknown person and the purpose of such receipt could not be explained by

the said company. Hence, he treated the loan of Rs.10 lakhs as

unexplained credit in the hands of the assessee.

in law, the assessee is required to explain the source of such credit and not

the source of source. He argued that he has explained the identity of the

loan creditor, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the

loan creditors and has discharged its burden u/s.68 of the Act and

therefore, the addition made of Rs.10 lakhs cannot be sustained in law. I

find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls

& Investment in ITA No.429/2003 order dated 21.12.2015 has held that

where the assessee has discharged its onus to prove the creditworthiness

and genuineness of the lender, there was no requirement in law for the

assessee to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the sub-

creditor. I find that the facts in the present case are identical to the facts

decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shiv Dhooti Pearls &

Investment (supra). Respectfully following the same, I set aside the orders

4 ITA No. 35/ CTK/2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

of lower authorities and delete the addition of Rs.10 lakhs made u/s.68 of

the Act and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee.

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack