← All Phrases

“identity of creditor”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68515 judgments

The decision most relied on for identity of creditor is CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on identity of creditor

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

DCIT v. Rohini Builders
256 ITR 360 · 2002 · High Court
489
citing judgments

An assessee discharges the initial onus under Section 68 for cash credits by providing creditor details like PAN and addresses, proving creditworthiness via banking transactions, and demonstrating genuineness, especially when loans are repaid through cheques.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT
107 ITR 938 · 1977 · Supreme Court
477
citing judgments

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.
208 ITR 465 · 1994 · High Court
427
citing judgments

When an assessee seeks to explain a cash credit under Section 68, they must prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness or capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transactions. The burden of proof is not discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters or demonstrating banking channel transactions.

CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.
299 ITR 268 · 2008 · High Court
426
citing judgments

An assessee introducing share capital or share premium must establish the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor or creditor; the burden does not extend to proving the 'source of source' or the financial capacity of the investor's sub-creditors.

Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT
264 ITR 254 · 2003 · High Court
340
citing judgments

For a cash credit, merely transacting by cheque is insufficient to discharge the assessee's burden of proof. The assessee must prove the identity of the creditors, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the creditors; upon which, the burden shifts to the revenue.

CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.
394 ITR 680 · 2017 · High Court
303
citing judgments

Under Section 68, an assessee is only required to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the immediate creditor or share subscriber and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee is not obligated to establish the 'source of the source' of funds or the creditworthiness of sub-lenders, as this information may not be within the assessee's special knowledge.

Judgments citing identity of creditor

ACIT 22 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6508/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 6505 & 6508/Mum/2019 (A.Ys.2009-10 & 2012-13) Acit-22(3) Vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises 305, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Centrum House, 8Th Floor Chambers, Lal Baug, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 055 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfr6072M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Date Of Hearing 13.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Cit(A)-34, Mumbai, Dated 11.07.2019. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 6505/Mum/2019 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 6508/Mum/2019 Mutatis Mutandis. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,26,00,000/-Made On Bogus & Non Genuine Loan & The Proportionate Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.21,96,699/- On The Said Loan Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Completely Failed In Substantiating The Loan The Loan Taken From The Parties Who Are Involved In Providing Accommodation Entries Only.

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Shah
Section 147Section 148Section 68

source of receipt of funds and the same has been duly complied with during the course of re-assessment proceedings. 1. Proof of identity of creditor: The identity has been already proved and submitted vide letter dated 06 12.2016. 2. Capacity of creditor to lend money le, creditworthiness of lender

ACIT 22 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6505/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 6505 & 6508/Mum/2019 (A.Ys.2009-10 & 2012-13) Acit-22(3) Vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises 305, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Centrum House, 8Th Floor Chambers, Lal Baug, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 055 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfr6072M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Date Of Hearing 13.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Cit(A)-34, Mumbai, Dated 11.07.2019. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 6505/Mum/2019 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 6508/Mum/2019 Mutatis Mutandis. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,26,00,000/-Made On Bogus & Non Genuine Loan & The Proportionate Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.21,96,699/- On The Said Loan Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Completely Failed In Substantiating The Loan The Loan Taken From The Parties Who Are Involved In Providing Accommodation Entries Only.

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Shah
Section 147Section 148Section 68

source of receipt of funds and the same has been duly complied with during the course of re-assessment proceedings. 1. Proof of identity of creditor: The identity has been already proved and submitted vide letter dated 06 12.2016. 2. Capacity of creditor to lend money le, creditworthiness of lender

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

copy of which has been filed before us in the form of paper-book (PB)] to prove the identity of creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction with respect to 127 parties which we find are given in the tabular form wherein in the first column numerical numbers