← 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

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

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

ITA 462/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

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udipur vs. M/S. Wagad Constrution Company, Udaipur

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 30/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Jan 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V. (JCIT-Sr.DR)
Section 143(1)

assessee as genuine, but the AO was not satisfied with the explanation as the assessee has failed to prove even the identity of creditors and genuineness of transaction. Thus the AO completed the assessment by making addition of Rs. 34,76,10,409/- on account of bogus sundry creditors. Being

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. Merrygold Gems Pvt. Ltd, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 126/SRT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2020 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Merrygold Gems Pvt. Ltd., U-20, Jolly Square, Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Vs Ram Chowk, Ghod Dod Road, Room No.114, 1St Floor, Surat-395007 Aaykar Bhavan, Pan No. Aaicm 7912 L Majura Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 68

Taxman 523 Guj.)/[2002] 256 ITR 230 (Guj.)/[2003] 182 CTR 373 (Guj.) [19-03-2001] held that when the assessee established identity of creditors by giving their complete address, GIR numbers / PAN as well as 13 Merrygold Gems Pvt.Ltd. confirmation along with copy of assessment order and discharged

Atul Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex- parte

ITA 1605/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee to proof prima facie the transaction which results in a credit in his books of account. Such proof includes, proof of the identity of creditors, capacity of such creditors to advance the money and lastly, the genuineness of the transaction. These things must he proved prima facie

Geeta Devi Saini, Jaipur vs. DCIT/ ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 285/JPR/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Ld. Pr. Cit, Jaipur For Obtaining Approval Inasmuch Assessee Has Purchased Geeta Devi Saini Vs Dcit,Circle-4, Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Jangid, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 148Section 68

Court in CIT v. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465, has laid down that an assessee is expected to establish (i) Identity of creditors (ii) Capacity of creditors to advance money (iii) Genuineness of transaction. In the given case the appellant has merely filed some declarations on plain

Balaji Janakiraman, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-2, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2931/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2931/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Balaji Janakiraman, V. The Asst. Commissioner- Plot No.3, Door No.5, Of Income Tax (Osd), Thilagar Street, Corporate Range-2, Chennai. Kamakoti Nagar, Annex, Kamakshi Nagar Main Road, Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. [Pan: Aeppj 7090 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.S.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 131

creditors cannot be regarded as unexplained credit/ income of the assessee. In this case, the assessee has furnished all evidences to prove the identity of creditors and also satisfactorily explained the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of creditors. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO is erred

Toplink Developers Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 127 Taxman 523 observed that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the identity of creditors by giving their complete addresses, permanent accounts number and copies of assessment orders. It was further observed that the assessee had also proved capacity of creditors by showing that

Mahendra Poonamchand Angara, Mumbai vs. Circle 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1994/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ingredients in order to discharge burden of proof placed upon him u/s 68 of the Act ie, the assessee has to prove the identity of creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. In the instant case, the assessee has furnished confirmation obtained from Rose Impex, which contained ... address of the creditor. The assessee has also furnished copies of return of income filed by the creditor These documents prove the identity of creditor. The assessee has also furnished bank account of Rose Impex and also it's own bank account in order to show that the loan transaction

Mahendra Poonamchand Angara, Mumbai vs. Circle-19(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1993/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ingredients in order to discharge burden of proof placed upon him u/s 68 of the Act ie, the assessee has to prove the identity of creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. In the instant case, the assessee has furnished confirmation obtained from Rose Impex, which contained ... address of the creditor. The assessee has also furnished copies of return of income filed by the creditor These documents prove the identity of creditor. The assessee has also furnished bank account of Rose Impex and also it's own bank account in order to show that the loan transaction

Mahendra Poonamchand Angara, Mumbai vs. Circle 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1992/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ingredients in order to discharge burden of proof placed upon him u/s 68 of the Act ie, the assessee has to prove the identity of creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. In the instant case, the assessee has furnished confirmation obtained from Rose Impex, which contained ... address of the creditor. The assessee has also furnished copies of return of income filed by the creditor These documents prove the identity of creditor. The assessee has also furnished bank account of Rose Impex and also it's own bank account in order to show that the loan transaction

M/S Silvertoss Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2282/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 127 Taxman 523 observed that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the identity of creditors by giving their complete addresses, permanent accounts number and copies of assessment orders. It was further observed that the assessee had also proved capacity of creditors by showing that

Smt. Mayuri P. Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 92/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 92/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Smt. Mayuri P. Patel, Income Tax Officer, Prof. Of Ar Chem Industries 15, Vs. Ward-1(3)(2), Neelkanth Society, Vadodara. B/H Sama Road, Vadodara-390002. Pan: Aqhpp7772K

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Shah, with Shri Rajesh, Sharma, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 131(1)Section 68

link in all these adjustment entry was not properly explained. Further the provision of section 68 requires the assessee to establish the identity of creditor, genuineness of transaction and credit worthiness of the parties. Merely the fact that the amount received through banking channel does not make the transaction

M/S. Kopran Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -7(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 501/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Kopran Ltd. 1St Floor, Parijat House, The Dcit–7(1) 1076, Mumbai Vs. Dr. E Moses Road,Worli, Mumbai-400 018 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack3202D Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Bhupendra Karkhanis, Ars Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR
Section 133Section 143Section 68

particulars source. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (208 ITR 465) has held that mere proof of identity of creditor or that the transactions were by cheque is not sufficient. The Supreme Court in the case of SumatiDayal (214 ITR 801) held that

DCIT, CC 4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Kukreja Development Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5766/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Harsh M. KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43(1)Section 68

assessee from her bank account with Standard Chartered Bank. Looking to the facts of the case all three ingredients like identity of creditor, their capacity to lend and genuineness of transaction is proved. 18. In view of the above, it may be concluded that the assessee has given sufficient details

Hoshiarpur Traders, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 117/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

establish receipt of credit in cash, as per requirement of Singh v. Income section 68, assessee has to explain three conditions, namely, identity of creditor; Tax Officer genuineness of transaction; and credit worthiness of creditor - Held, yes - Assessee individual had taken unsecured loan of certain amount from one ST - Assessing ... noted that loan amount was given to [2020] 121 assessee through cheque by ST - There was no dispute as to identity of creditor ST - There taxmann.com 86 was also no dispute about genuineness of transaction - That apart, creditor had explained as to how credit was given to assessee as amount

Income Tax Officer-2, Raigarh vs. Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, Jashpur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 96/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.96/Rpr/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Ito-2, Raigargh Vs Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, College Road, Dist : Jashpur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31 /10 /2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bilaspur, Dated 06.03.2018, On The Following Ground :- 1. Whether In The Facts & Circumstance & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & On The Points Of The Law Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao By Ignoring The Facts As Brought On Record By The Ao That The Assessee Failed To Prove The Identity Of The Creditor, Genuineness Of The Transaction & Creditworthiness Of The Investor As Per The Parameters Of The Legal Provisions U/S 68 Of The Act? 3. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act By Ignoring The Decisions In The Following Lead Cases:- (I) Mcdowell & Company Ltd Vs Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 22 Taxman 11 (Sc). (Ii) M/S Raj Mandir Estates Pvt Ltd Vs Pcit-Iii, Kolkata (Slp No. 22566-22567) Dated 09.01.2017. (Iii) Cit Vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd., 208 Itr 465(Cal).

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 361 the hon'ble Guj'rat High Court has held as under :- "APPEAL TO HIGH COURT- CASH CREDITS- IDENTITY OF CREDITORS PROVED- AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES- INITIAL BURDEN OF PROVING CREDITS DISCHARGED- SOURCE OF CREDITS NEED NOT BE PROVED- FACT THAT EXPLANATION

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gtc Oilfields Services P. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the 8 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 971/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royappeal No. Ay Appellant Respondent Sn M/S. Gtc Oilfields Services P. Ltd., 2009-10 The Dcit, 61, New York Tower, A-Block, It(Ss)A Nos. 1-3 2010-11 Central Circle 1(4), Thaltej Char Rasta, S.G. Road, 314 To 316/Ahd/2019 2014-15 Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 Pan : Aaacg 8684 P The Dcit, M/S. Gtc Oilfields Services P. Ltd.

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153A

Baghbaan Marketing Pvt Ltd., who is also Pr. CIT of the appellant company. Thus, from the above facts and evidences, the identity of creditors i.e. Baghbaan Marketing Pvt. Ltd, who has invested in share capital and share premium in appellant company is established. The investment in share capital and share

ACIT 5 (1), Bhopal vs. M/S Vindhya Solvent Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 281/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Oct 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: RespondentbyFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

instances of "unexplained" credits and not "unpaid" credits. In the present case adequate evidences were available with the AO which explained the identity of creditor, nature of credit, etc. Consequently, prima facie the action of the AO of invoking the provisions of section 68 merely because the creditors have

Sita Devi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-4(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

Precision Finance P Ltd. (Cal) 208 ITR 465, that when the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of credit, mere proof of identity of creditor or that transaction was by cheque, is not sufficient. Addition u/s 68 was justified. Thus 15 SMT SITA DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO, WARD

Shri Shri Sudhir Kumar Jha, Bhilai(Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Bhilai, Bhilai(Cg)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 90/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 69

Andhra Pradesh High Court in 221 Taxman .143 (A.P) further held that mere filing of bank statement is not ei establish identity of creditors. The hon'ble Kerala High Court held that “The mere fact that the payment was by way of account payee cheque is also not conclusive